From: Max Horn <max@quendi.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:32:13 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2014, #03; Fri, 14)
Message-ID: <3CCB443D-D5CE-4C4B-910D-EC34115A695D@quendi.de>
In-Reply-To: <906CACC0-FB16-4BB8-812D-59067DE0CC89@quendi.de>


On 19.03.2014, at 11:53, Max Horn <max@quendi.de> wrote:

> 
> On 17.03.2014, at 18:01, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2014-03-14 23.09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> * ap/remote-hg-skip-null-bookmarks (2014-01-02) 1 commit
>>>> - remote-hg: do not fail on invalid bookmarks
>>>> 
>>>> Reported to break tests ($gmane/240005)
>>>> Expecting a reroll.
>>> I wonder what should happen here.
>>> The change breaks all the tests in test-hg-hg-git.sh
>>> (And the breakage may prevent us from detecting other breakages)
>>> 
>>> The ideal situation would be to have an extra test case for the problem
>>> which we try to fix with this patch.
> 

[...]

> The (or at least "a") root cause has actually been discovered. Would a patch that adds an xfail test case for it be acceptable?
> 
> As to the why the proposed patch causes test failures: I think this is due to the fact that remote-hg inserts a fake "master" branch (resp. "bookmark" in the hg terminology). Now, in those test cases, a hg repository gets created that actually contains a "null" bookmark named "master". When the proposed fix for the problem is added, this bookmarks gets ignored. But at that point, remote-hg already determined that there is a hg bookmark named "master", and adjusts how it works accordingly -- when we then remove that bookmarks, things go awry.
> 
> But I might be wrong here, and in any case, did not yet have time to come up with a proper fix.

Actually, scratch that, I just came up with a fix, and also tests. Will submit shortly.

I'd still like to know whether it is OK to submit further patches with (x?)failing test cases?