On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:32:53AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:52 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 05:15:48PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:01 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: [snip] > > Hm. I don't really know how to phrase this better. The preceding > > paragraph already explains why we're discarding the extension and what > > the consequence is. I added a sentence saying ", which will cause > > failures when trying to access any refs." > > To me the preceding paragraph said that we are overwriting the config > file, but I just don't see how for example the above test overwrites > anything. So maybe I am missing something obvious, or maybe you don't > quite mean "overwrite", but I don't see how the extension would be > discarded by the test which only seems to add stuff. It happens before already, outside of any tests. See line 1036: ``` cat > .git/config <<\EOF [section "sub=section"] val1 = foo=bar val2 = foo\nbar val3 = \n\n val4 = val5 EOF ``` Overall, I agree that this is rather hard to discover and that the tests really could require a bigger refactoring to make them more independent of each other. I'll send another version that mentions this explicitly. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
