From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 17:30:37 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] t1508 (at-combinations): test branches separately
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1wv4sCQM6V3S2+56KnxPJVQAp1skiUP+vSEetmenB_+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0=_zcO8K75YxmQVp9hog0yHJ_vH5QKRwpWN8QMUc2zm_Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think it's less surprising.

-- 
Felipe Contreras