[PATCH] Convert t6022 to use git-merge instead of git-pull

Alex Riesen· Apr 25, 2007, 20:07 UTC · lore

Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
---
 t/t6022-merge-rename.sh |   28 ++++++++++++++--------------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Show changes to t/t6022-merge-rename.sh +14 −14

diff --git a/t/t6022-merge-rename.sh b/t/t6022-merge-rename.sh
index b608e20..99817de 100755
--- a/t/t6022-merge-rename.sh
+++ b/t/t6022-merge-rename.sh
@@ -79,10 +79,10 @@ git commit -m "blue renames A->C, M->N" &&
 
 git checkout master'
 
-test_expect_success 'pull renaming branch into unrenaming one' \
+test_expect_success 'merge renaming branch into unrenaming one' \
 '
 	git show-branch
-	git pull . white && {
+	git merge white && {
 		echo "BAD: should have conflicted"
 		return 1
 	}
@@ -108,12 +108,12 @@ test_expect_success 'pull renaming branch into unrenaming one' \
 	}
 '
 
-test_expect_success 'pull renaming branch into another renaming one' \
+test_expect_success 'merge renaming branch into another renaming one' \
 '
 	rm -f B
 	git reset --hard
 	git checkout red
-	git pull . white && {
+	git merge white && {
 		echo "BAD: should have conflicted"
 		return 1
 	}
@@ -138,11 +138,11 @@ test_expect_success 'pull renaming branch into another renaming one' \
 	}
 '
 
-test_expect_success 'pull unrenaming branch into renaming one' \
+test_expect_success 'merge unrenaming branch into renaming one' \
 '
 	git reset --hard
 	git show-branch
-	git pull . master && {
+	git merge master && {
 		echo "BAD: should have conflicted"
 		return 1
 	}
@@ -167,11 +167,11 @@ test_expect_success 'pull unrenaming branch into renaming one' \
 	}
 '
 
-test_expect_success 'pull conflicting renames' \
+test_expect_success 'merge conflicting renames' \
 '
 	git reset --hard
 	git show-branch
-	git pull . blue && {
+	git merge blue && {
 		echo "BAD: should have conflicted"
 		return 1
 	}
@@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ test_expect_success 'interference with untracked working tree file' '
 	git reset --hard
 	git show-branch
 	echo >A this file should not matter
-	git pull . white && {
+	git merge white && {
 		echo "BAD: should have conflicted"
 		return 1
 	}
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ test_expect_success 'interference with untracked working tree file' '
 	git show-branch
 	rm -f A
 	echo >A this file should not matter
-	git pull . red && {
+	git merge red && {
 		echo "BAD: should have conflicted"
 		return 1
 	}
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ test_expect_success 'interference with untracked working tree file' '
 	git checkout -f master
 	git tag -f anchor
 	git show-branch
-	git pull . yellow || {
+	git merge yellow || {
 		echo "BAD: should have cleanly merged"
 		return 1
 	}
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ test_expect_success 'updated working tree file should prevent the merge' '
 	git show-branch
 	echo >>M one line addition
 	cat M >M.saved
-	git pull . yellow && {
+	git merge yellow && {
 		echo "BAD: should have complained"
 		return 1
 	}
@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ test_expect_success 'updated working tree file should prevent the merge' '
 	echo >>M one line addition
 	cat M >M.saved
 	git update-index M
-	git pull . yellow && {
+	git merge yellow && {
 		echo "BAD: should have complained"
 		return 1
 	}
@@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ test_expect_success 'interference with untracked working tree file' '
 	git tag -f anchor
 	git show-branch
 	echo >M this file should not matter
-	git pull . master || {
+	git merge master || {
 		echo "BAD: should have cleanly merged"
 		return 1
 	}

-- 
1.5.2.rc0.63.gdfc8-dirty

Junio C Hamano· Apr 25, 2007, 21:15 UTC · re: Alex Riesen · lore

Re: [PATCH] Convert t6022 to use git-merge instead of git-pull

Is this really necessary?

I would rather want to leave some tests use "git merge" while some others use "git pull ." to catch breakage of either form.

Alex Riesen· Apr 25, 2007, 22:12 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH] Convert t6022 to use git-merge instead of git-pull

Junio C Hamano, Wed, Apr 25, 2007 23:15:03 +0200:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Is this really necessary?
> 
> I would rather want to leave some tests use "git merge" while
> some others use "git pull ." to catch breakage of either form.
>

No, of course not. I think the last patch should apply anyway. I didn't realize these were the last uses of the old git-pull syntax

Andy Whitcroft· Apr 28, 2007, 11:11 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH] Convert t6022 to use git-merge instead of git-pull

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Is this really necessary?
> 
> I would rather want to leave some tests use "git merge" while
> some others use "git pull ." to catch breakage of either form.

If we are saying git pull . foo and git merge foo forms are the same then perhaps that whole bunch of tests should be converted such that they are in for cmd in "merge" "pull ." loop, so we test both always.

-apw

Junio C Hamano· Apr 29, 2007, 07:17 UTC · re: Andy Whitcroft · lore

Re: [PATCH] Convert t6022 to use git-merge instead of git-pull

Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Is this really necessary?
>> 
>> I would rather want to leave some tests use "git merge" while
>> some others use "git pull ." to catch breakage of either form.
>
> If we are saying git pull . foo and git merge foo forms are the same
> then perhaps that whole bunch of tests should be converted such that
> they are in for cmd in "merge" "pull ." loop, so we test both always.

Not "whole bunch" needs to check they are the same. Ideally we would want to have a single separate test whose sole purpose is to make sure they are the same, but if we do not have such a test, the next best thing is to leave some test to use one way while some others to use another. In other words, consistency is not necessarily better than diversity in tests.

patchConvert t6022 to use git-merge instead of git-pull