Hi Junio, On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> > > writes: > > > >> diff --git a/t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh b/t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh > >> index 9e16512fe31..4f10057e9f1 100755 > >> --- a/t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh > >> +++ b/t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh > >> @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ test_expect_success 'shallow fetches check connectivity before writing shallow f > >> git -C "$REPO" config protocol.version 2 && > >> git -C client config protocol.version 2 && > >> > >> - git -C client fetch --depth=2 "$HTTPD_URL/one_time_sed/repo" master:a_branch && > >> + git -C client fetch --depth=2 "$HTTPD_URL/one_time_perl/repo" master:a_branch && > >> > >> # Craft a situation in which the server sends back an unshallow request > >> # with an empty packfile. This is done by refetching with a shorter > >> @@ -246,13 +246,13 @@ test_expect_success 'shallow fetches check connectivity before writing shallow f > >> printf "$(test_oid sed)" \ > > > > Hmm, shouldn't the test-oid token "sed" whose value is set up in the > > setup section of this test script also be renamed to "perl"? Ooops... > > Or, if we are actively taking advantage of the fact that the syntax of > > the replacement operator is the same between the languages, perhaps > > "sed" is better renamed to something more language agnostic and > > reflects the purpose/reason why we extend the packet header by two > > bytes with the one-time munging process? > > > >> "$(git -C "$REPO" rev-parse HEAD)" \ > >> "$(git -C "$REPO" rev-parse HEAD^)" \ > >> - >"$HTTPD_ROOT_PATH/one-time-sed" && > >> + >"$HTTPD_ROOT_PATH/one-time-perl" && > > > > Other than that, this step looked quite sensible. Thanks. > > Hmm, is it because you wanted to backport this down to 'maint' > (otherwise, your tests will start failing in a month) that you left > the "test_oid sed" thing untouched? If so, that makes sort-of > sense. That's a good point. I target `maint` in v2, and offered an add-on patch meant to be applied on top of the merge into `master` (or `next`, or `pu`). > I expect that the series will be rerolled, if only for s/BSD/macOS/ > mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but in the meantime, I'll rebase > them on 'maint' "as a practice" while queuing. Thanks ;-) Ciao, Dscho
