Re: [PATCH 0/25] detecting &&-chain breakage
- From
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
- Date
- Mar 20, 2015, 23:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAPig+cRCbhMR58_PSFnsWoyo_aZoTOVZM2YeYC6Tvo7iXMZwBA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20150320100429.GA17354@peff.net>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> [...] > There were a number of false positives, though as a percentage of the > test suite, probably not many (it's just that we have quite a lot of > tests). Most of them were in rather old tests, and IMHO the fixes I did > actually improved the readability of the result. So overall I think this > is a very positive change; I doubt it will get in people's way very > often, and I look forward to having one less thing to worry about > handling manually in review. The biggest downside is that I may have > automated Eric Sunshine out of a job. :)
Heh. I won't mind. Thanks for doing a thorough job.
Ironically, one of the broken here-doc &&-links you detected with --chain-lint and fixed in 4/25 was from a patch from me: 5a9830cb (t8001/t8002 (blame): add blame -L :funcname tests, 2013-07-17).