From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:52:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] t5516 (fetch-push): introduce mk_test_with_name()
Message-ID: <7vmwtv8p1c.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130322144454.GA3083@sigill.intra.peff.net>

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.

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.

Thanks.