patcht5533: make it pass on case-sensitive filesystems

> The newly-added test case wants to commit a file "c.t" (note the lower
> case) when a previous test case already committed a file "C.t". This
> confuses Git to the point that it thinks "c.t" was not staged when "git
> add c.t" was called.
>
> Simply make the naming of the test commits consistent with the previous
> test cases: use upper-case, and advance in the alphabet.
>
> This came up in local work to rebase the Windows-specific patches to the
> current `next` branch. An identical fix was suggested by John Keeping.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
> Published-As: https://github.com/dscho/git/releases/tag/t5533-case-insensitive-v1
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/dscho/git t5533-case-insensitive-v1

>  t/t5533-push-cas.sh | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t5533-push-cas.sh b/t/t5533-push-cas.sh
> index 09899af..a2c9e74 100755
> --- a/t/t5533-push-cas.sh
> +++ b/t/t5533-push-cas.sh
> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ test_expect_success 'new branch already exists' '
>  	(
>  		cd src &&
>  		git checkout -b branch master &&
> -		test_commit c
> +		test_commit F
>  	) &&
>  	(
>  		cd dst &&

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > The newly-added test case wants to commit a file "c.t" (note the lower
> > case) when a previous test case already committed a file "C.t". This
> > confuses Git to the point that it thinks "c.t" was not staged when "git
> > add c.t" was called.
> >
> > Simply make the naming of the test commits consistent with the previous
> > test cases: use upper-case, and advance in the alphabet.
> >
> > This came up in local work to rebase the Windows-specific patches to the
> > current `next` branch. An identical fix was suggested by John Keeping.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > ---
> > Published-As: https://github.com/dscho/git/releases/tag/t5533-case-insensitive-v1
> > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/dscho/git t5533-case-insensitive-v1
> 
> Thanks.  It may make it easier to see to have a blank line here,
> separating them from the diffstat.

> > base-commit: 9813b109b4ec6630220e5f3d8aff275e23cba59e
> 
> A totally unrelated tangent.
> 
> This line turns out to be less than useful at least in this
> particular case.
> 
> The fix is meant for jk/push-force-with-lease-creation topic, but I
> had to find it out by the old fashioned way, i.e. running blame for
> these lines in 'pu' to find eee98e74f9 is the culprit and then
> running "git branch --with eee98e74f9".  The only thing the line
> made easier is I _could_ start the blame at the named commit (which
> is on 'next') instead of 'pu'.  When I took that "base-commit"
> series, I was hoping that it would give us a lot more useful
> information.

> > The fix is meant for jk/push-force-with-lease-creation topic, but I
> > had to find it out by the old fashioned way, i.e. running blame for
> > these lines in 'pu' to find eee98e74f9 is the culprit and then
> > running "git branch --with eee98e74f9".  The only thing the line
> > made easier is I _could_ start the blame at the named commit (which
> > is on 'next') instead of 'pu'.  When I took that "base-commit"
> > series, I was hoping that it would give us a lot more useful
> > information.
> 
> Sorry for that. The way my mail-patch-series.sh script works is that it
> tries to determine which branch between `master`, `next` or `pu` is the
> base (and it then submits *all* commits that are on top of that branch).
> 
> So my branch was indeed based on `next` for that reason, not on
> top of `jk/push-force-with-lease-creation`. Otherwise, I would have
> resubmitted John's patches because the script would have determined that
> my patch is on top of `master`, not on top of `next`.

> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 04:19:08PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > > The fix is meant for jk/push-force-with-lease-creation topic, but I
> > > had to find it out by the old fashioned way, i.e. running blame for
> > > these lines in 'pu' to find eee98e74f9 is the culprit and then
> > > running "git branch --with eee98e74f9".  The only thing the line
> > > made easier is I _could_ start the blame at the named commit (which
> > > is on 'next') instead of 'pu'.  When I took that "base-commit"
> > > series, I was hoping that it would give us a lot more useful
> > > information.
> > 
> > Sorry for that. The way my mail-patch-series.sh script works is that
> > it tries to determine which branch between `master`, `next` or `pu` is
> > the base (and it then submits *all* commits that are on top of that
> > branch).
> > 
> > So my branch was indeed based on `next` for that reason, not on top of
> > `jk/push-force-with-lease-creation`. Otherwise, I would have
> > resubmitted John's patches because the script would have determined
> > that my patch is on top of `master`, not on top of `next`.
> 
> Do you fetch from the main git.git repository, or Junio's gitster/git
> workspace on GitHub?