Re: [GSoC][PATCH] microporject test_path_is_*

Hi Eliah, thanks for the advice, but still after I read the SubmittingPatches , and see around the Submitting patches process still confussing for me , there's a better way for explanation as an example

Regards

On 27.03.19, 18:06, "Elijah Newren" <git-owner@vger.kernel.org on behalf of newren@gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi Mooga,
    
    On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 5:27 AM Mooga <contact@m-mooga.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    > So for example  that is git diff
    >
    > diff --git a/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
    > index 286bba35d8..fc82965a0f 100755
    > --- a/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
    > +++ b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
    > @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ test_expect_success '"add" worktree' '
    > test_expect_success '"add" worktree with lock' '
    >         git rev-parse HEAD >expect &&
    >         git worktree add --detach --lock here-with-lock master &&
    > -       test -f .git/worktrees/here-with-lock/locked
    > +       test_path_is_file .git/worktrees/here-with-lock/locked
    >
    > I would like to hear feedback if I should commit
    
    As you noticed from the other thread, there are folks who are now
    unsure whether this microproject suggestion is a good idea anymore.
    Personally, I like the test_path_is_* slightly better, but the real
    issue is that we didn't have that discussion before starting the GSoC
    process and putting it up as a suggestion on the microprojects page.
    I think the main purpose is getting people familiar with creating and
    submitting patches, so I'd go ahead and make this change as well as
    others needed in that file and submit it.  Maybe the patch doesn't get
    applied but if you've created a correct commit and submitted it as a
    patch to the mailing list, I'd still count it as a successful
    microproject.