On 4/10/19 3:00 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
[snip]
+ split[0].unblamable = e->unblamable;
+ split[1].unblamable = e->unblamable;
+ split[2].unblamable = e->unblamable;
I wonder what the comfort level for people in general is before turning
this sort of thing into a for-loop, 4? :)
4 sounds good to me. =)
+ nr_lines = e->num_lines; // e changes in the loop
A C++-like trailing comment.
+ grep "^[0-9a-f]\+ [0-9]\+ 1" blame_raw | sed -e "s/ .*//" >actual &&
+ git rev-parse X >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ grep "^[0-9a-f]\+ [0-9]\+ 2" blame_raw | sed -e "s/ .*//" >actual &&
+ git rev-parse X >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
The grep here is a bug. See my 4abf20f004 ("tests: fix unportable "\?"
and "\+" regex syntax", 2019-02-21).
Thanks - will fix up this stuff in the next round.
