Re: [PATCH 2/9] t1508 (at-combinations): test branches separately
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 2, 2013, 17:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0=_zcO8K75YxmQVp9hog0yHJ_vH5QKRwpWN8QMUc2zm_Q@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAMP44s3up_xo=oU+5EajoFo7VzA3RDK+hR-maxN9cUw7y=b3Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> I'm not sure about this. If we introduce a check that fails, we would > have to do: > > check HEAD refs/heads/new-branch "" failure > > Which doesn't seem clean. Perhaps it makes more sense to always add > the type of check: > > check HEAD ref refs/heads/new-branch
I think you misunderstood. Failure looks like this:
check "@@{u}" ref refs/heads/upstream-branch failureAnd corresponding success like this:
check "@@{u}" refs/heads/upstream-branchWe can make the "ref" compulsory if you like. I thought about it too.