> > --- a/t/perf/p3400-rebase.sh > > +++ b/t/perf/p3400-rebase.sh > > @@ -9,16 +9,16 @@ test_expect_success 'setup rebasing on top of a lot of changes' ' > > git checkout -f -B base && > > git checkout -B to-rebase && > > git checkout -B upstream && > > - for i in $(seq 100) > > + for i in $(test_seq 100) > > do > > # simulate huge diffs > > echo change$i >unrelated-file$i && > > - seq 1000 >>unrelated-file$i && > > + test_seq 1000 >>unrelated-file$i && > > git add unrelated-file$i && > > test_tick && > > git commit -m commit$i unrelated-file$i && > > echo change$i >unrelated-file$i && > > - seq 1000 | tac >>unrelated-file$i && > > + test_seq 1000 | tac >>unrelated-file$i && > > The rest of this all looks good, but I think adding 'tac' here is still > wrong; this isn't available everywhere, so we would want to find an > alternative before going further. Is there a reason that you couldn't > use a different 'N' in 'test_seq N' here? Hey. I think there's some confusion. I didn't add `tac`. It was already here. I didn't even notice it until Junio mentioned it. --Nipunn
