On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:13:45AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:37:42PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > +test_expect_success 'push --atomic shows all failed refs' ' > >> > + # Make up/master, up/allrefs > >> > + d=$HTTPD_DOCUMENT_ROOT_PATH/atomic-failed-refs.git && > >> > + git init --bare "$d" && > >> > + git --git-dir="$d" config http.receivepack true && > >> > + up="$HTTPD_URL"/smart/atomic-failed-refs.git && > >> > + test_commit allrefs1 && > >> > + test_commit allrefs2 && > >> > + git branch allrefs && > >> > + git push "$up" master allrefs && > >> > + # Make master and allrefs incompatible with up/master, up/allrefs > >> > + git checkout allrefs && > >> > + git reset --hard HEAD^ && > >> > + git checkout master && > >> > + git reset --hard HEAD^ && > >> > + # --atomic should complain about both master and allrefs > >> > + test_must_fail git push --atomic "$up" master allrefs >&output && > >> > >> Don't rely on ">&output", which is an unnecessary bash-ism here. It > >> breaks test run under shells like dash. > >> > >> >output 2>&1 > >> > >> should be OK. > > > > '2>output' would be a tad better, because those refs should be printed > > to stderr. > > Yeah; there are many existing uses of ">output 2>&1" in the same > script and I was following the suit. There also are 2>err and I > agree that it is more appropriate in this case. Oh, this is a good point. I'll change it, thanks both.
