Re: [PATCH 0/3] t2106 vs. the default branch name

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 18, 2020, 20:56 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2011182152580.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1rgq1jgf.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Hi Junio,

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> > Yet another thing I noticed while working on
> > https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/762.
> >
> > Johannes Schindelin (3):
> >   t2106: adjust style to the current conventions
> >   t2106: make test independent of the current main branch name
> >   t2106: ensure that the checkout fails for the expected reason
> >
> >  t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh | 31 +++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> This seems to partly replicate and partly deprecate what is in that
> final stretch 27-or-28 patch series does to the same test script.
> Are we taking this and then removing a patch or two from that larger
> series?

Sorry, I meant to explain my current thinking: for v3, I want to accommodate your wish (to mark every test script with the hard-coded default branch name individually, and only those test scripts that actually need to hard-code it). It is not only to fulfill your wish, I got genuinely curious what would actually be needed to make that happen.

The four test scripts for which I sent patch series in the past hours to remove the use of the name `master` won't be touched by v3 of this here patch series at all (because it won't be necessary anymore).

Ciao, Dscho