From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 17:28:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] t1508 (at-combinations): test branches separately
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:
> 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 failure

And corresponding success like this:

    check "@@{u}" refs/heads/upstream-branch

We can make the "ref" compulsory if you like.  I thought about it too.