Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 03:02:59PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
>> index 862d80c9748..16fd585e34b 100644
>> --- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh
>> +++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
>> @@ -458,6 +458,7 @@ test_commit_bulk () {
>> indir=.
>> ref=HEAD
>> n=1
>> + notick=
>> message='commit %s'
>> filename='%s.t'
>> contents='content %s'
>> @@ -488,6 +489,12 @@ test_commit_bulk () {
>> filename="${1#--*=}-%s.t"
>> contents="${1#--*=} %s"
>> ;;
>> + --date)
>> + notick=yes
>> + GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="$2"
>> + GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="$2"
>> + shift
>> + ;;
>
> This gives all of the bulk commits the same date. Which is kind of
> unrealistic.
Yeah, giving this helper function a "--notick" option, without
adding this "--date" option, is a better design, I suspect.
The callers Taylor expected to use --date can set the _DATE
variables and pass "--notick", and callers that want the same
timestamp without caring which exact timestamp can just pass
"--notick" without futzing with _DATE variables.
Thanks.
