Re: [PATCH 6/7] test-hg.sh: help user correlate verbose output with email test

> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-11-11 06:42, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> Richard Hansen wrote:
>>>> It's hard to tell which author conversion test failed when the email
>>>> addresses look similar.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  contrib/remote-helpers/test-hg.sh | 20 ++++++++++----------
>>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/contrib/remote-helpers/test-hg.sh b/contrib/remote-helpers/test-hg.sh
>>>> index 84c67ff..5eda265 100755
>>>> --- a/contrib/remote-helpers/test-hg.sh
>>>> +++ b/contrib/remote-helpers/test-hg.sh
>>>> @@ -209,16 +209,16 @@ test_expect_success 'authors' '
>>>>
>>>>      >../expected &&
>>>>      author_test alpha "" "H G Wells <wells@example.com>" &&
>>>> -    author_test beta "test" "test <unknown>" &&
>>>> -    author_test beta "test <test@example.com> (comment)" "test <test@example.com>" &&
>>
>> Notice the two betas here in the original code.
> 
> Ahh, that's a bug.
> 
>>>> -    author_test gamma "<test@example.com>" "Unknown <test@example.com>" &&
>>>> -    author_test delta "name<test@example.com>" "name <test@example.com>" &&
>>>> -    author_test epsilon "name <test@example.com" "name <test@example.com>" &&
>>>> -    author_test zeta " test " "test <unknown>" &&
>>>> -    author_test eta "test < test@example.com >" "test <test@example.com>" &&
>>>> -    author_test theta "test >test@example.com>" "test <test@example.com>" &&
>>>> -    author_test iota "test < test <at> example <dot> com>" "test <unknown>" &&
>>>> -    author_test kappa "test@example.com" "Unknown <test@example.com>"
>>>> +    author_test beta "beta" "beta <unknown>" &&
>>>> +    author_test beta "beta <test@example.com> (comment)" "beta <test@example.com>" &&
>>>
>>> Two betas?
>>
>> See above.  I can change them to beta1 and beta2, or if you'd prefer I
>> can change them to beta and gamma and increment the subsequent entries.
> 
> Yeah, I would prefer that in two patches, one that fixes the sequence,
> and the other one that changes the emails.

> If you don't have time for
> that the original patch is OK by me. The problem with the sequence can
> be fixed later.
> 
> Cheers.
>