Re: [PATCH 26/27] t/*svn*: fix moderate &&-chain breakage
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Mar 20, 2015, 20:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20150320200239.GA25506@peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqh9tfea1v.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:35:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 31 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > > > Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes: > > > >> All of these cases are moderate since they would most probably not > >> lead to missed failing tests: Either they would fail otherwise, > >> or fail a rm in test_when_finished only. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> > >> --- > >> t/t2026-prune-linked-checkouts.sh | 4 ++-- > >> t/t9158-git-svn-mergeinfo.sh | 4 ++-- > >> t/t9161-git-svn-mergeinfo-push.sh | 10 +++++----- > >> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > Ahh, it seems that I should have read everything in my inbox before > > starting my day X-<. I already queued an identical patch for 2026 > > on nd/multiple-work-trees, and its new tip is in 'next' now. > > > > Which branches are the git-svn ones meant to apply? Are they meant > > to fix an existing bug already in master, or are they new ones added > > by still-in-flight topics? Can you split if necessary and mark them > > for individual topios in flight if that is the case, so that we can > > apply them independently from GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT series? > > > > Thanks. > > OK, I think I figured it out. All the git-svn bits in 26 and 27 are > for 'master', and should be part of Peff's original 25-patch series. > I'll drop 2026 from your 26/25 and queue it together with your 27/25 > on top off it.
Yeah, that was my impression, too. I don't have svn installed on my system, so I missed those ones. I don't have CVS either. That might be worth following up on.
-Peff