Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> * So, it becomes much smaller by punting the whole configuration >> thing, as we do not need the extra code for config parsing and >> there is no need for code to override the user configuration when >> driving "git fetch" from "git pull". > > Sounds good. I'll incorporate this patch into my next version, > except it seems you dropped this test: Yup. As we are not touching "pull" at all, the test I removed would make as much sense as a hypothetical one where its "git pull" is replaced with "git cat-file" or any other unrelated subcommand, and that is why I removed it. But I am OK if you resurrect it---everybody thinks "fetch" and "pull" are closely related after all. Thanks. > diff --git a/t/t5521-pull-options.sh b/t/t5521-pull-options.sh > index 159afa7ac8..db1a381cd9 100755 > --- a/t/t5521-pull-options.sh > +++ b/t/t5521-pull-options.sh > @@ -85,6 +85,13 @@ test_expect_success 'git pull --cleanup errors early on invalid argument' ' > test -s err) > ' > > +test_expect_success 'git pull --no-write-fetch-head fails' ' > + mkdir clonedwfh && > + (cd clonedwfh && git init && > + test_expect_code 129 git pull --no-write-fetch-head "../parent" >out 2>err && > + test_must_be_empty out && > + test_i18ngrep "no-write-fetch-head" err) > +' > > test_expect_success 'git pull --force' ' > mkdir clonedoldstyle && > > which I changed "test_must_fail" to "test_expect_code 129" to > demonstrate that this is a usage error, not just any error. > > Thanks, > -Stolee
