From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael J Gruber Subject: Re: [BUG] assertion failure in builtin-mv.c with "git mv -k" Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:04:44 +0100 Message-ID: <496E0D1C.20807@drmicha.warpmail.net> References: <496DFC75.2000904@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthieu Moy , git To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 14 17:07:58 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LN8Ft-0003kX-UD for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:06:10 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755210AbZANQEq (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:04:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755143AbZANQEq (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:04:46 -0500 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:57688 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755139AbZANQEp (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:04:45 -0500 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.internal [10.202.2.42]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAB72118C4; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:04:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:04:44 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: xqZYnSlK7SlsiB62t0b+XvKXEAh31WZnzjRbNFb9SbrW 1231949083 Received: from [139.174.44.34] (pascal.math.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.44.34]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98FAF30E60; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:04:43 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 14.01.2009 16:54: > Hi, > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Michael J Gruber wrote: > >> I'll send a patch but I'm not sure if this needs a test case. > > Umm, Michael, you have been here long enough to know that the answer is a > "YES!". If you fix something, you want to provide a test case just to > make sure you do not need to fix it again later. > > Ciao, > Dscho > It was a lame attempt at getting around it, it's just one line... I didn't know I've been being noticed long enough ;) So, should I prepare a series like: 1: test case and mark known fail 2: the 1 line fix 3: mark test pass Or should 2+3 be squashed into one? Cheers, Michael