Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] t: replace incorrect test_must_fail usage (part 5)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:47:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is mostly a resend of what's currently queued in
> > "dl/test-must-fail-fixes-5" except with a tiny bit of cleanup on the tip
> > patch. I'd appreciate a review on this series so that we can finally get
> > rid of that "Needs review" on the What's Cooking messages ;)
> 
> Thanks.  
> 
> The OVERWRITING_FAIL one was the only one I was unhappy about, so it
> would be good to have more eyeballs on it---perhaps other people
> find the approach acceptable, or can suggest more readable and
> understandable approach.

FWIW, I don't really like it either. :) I gave my best shot at an
alternative in reply to that patch.

-Peff



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux