"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
>
> We do not need to hard-code the actual branch name, as we have access to
> the reflog and can be a lot more precise at what we want.
I am not enthused to see us going beyond "@{1}" or "@{-1}". It
would make the test a bit too brittle as a future changes need to
refrain from creating another commit and/or switching to a third
branch to do some more set-up before coming here to attempt an
merge.
In this particular case, "git merge @{-1}" may be more robust from
that point of view
Thanks.
> t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh b/t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh
> index 8bdaa0a693..c9dd62b70e 100755
> --- a/t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh
> +++ b/t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh
> @@ -883,7 +883,8 @@ test_expect_success 'combined diff with autocrlf conversion' '
> echo >x goodbye &&
> git commit -m "the other side" x &&
> git config core.autocrlf true &&
> - test_must_fail git merge master &&
> + test_must_fail git merge @{2} >actual &&
> + test_i18ngrep "Automatic merge failed" actual &&
>
> git diff >actual.raw &&
> sed -e "1,/^@@@/d" actual.raw >actual &&
>
> base-commit: e31aba42fb12bdeb0f850829e008e1e3f43af500
