On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 08:45:24AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
Agreed. Thanks, both.
Thanks,
Taylor
