From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:59:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] t5516 (fetch-push): introduce mk_test_with_name()
Message-ID: <20130322145936.GD3083@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vmwtv8p1c.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:52:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > I think this is OK, and I do not mind if it gets applied. But what I was
> > hinting at in my earlier mail was that we might want to do this (I have
> > it as a separate patch on top of your 3/6 here, but it would make more
> > sense squashed in):
> 
> I would prefer to see a preparatory patch to teach mk_test/mk_empty
> to _always_ take the new name (i.e. the result of your patch) and
> then do whatever new things on top.

I think that is what my patch does (it is meant to come at the point of
3/6, and then the rest would need to be rebased to just use "mk_test"
instead of "mk_test_with_name").

> By the way, I am planning to _not_ look at new stuff today. I'd
> rather see known recent regressions addressed (and unknown ones
> discovered and squashed) before we move forward, and I would
> appreciate if regular contributors did the same.

Yeah, I have several to look at (the "subdir/" in gitattributes is the
biggest one, I think).

-Peff