From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Lichtenheld Subject: Re: [PATCH] t9400: Add some tests for checkout Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:25:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20071004192549.GD31659@planck.djpig.de> References: <1191521625-2597-1-git-send-email-frank@lichtenheld.de> <20071004191217.GC31659@planck.djpig.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 04 21:26:32 2007 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 1IdWKq-00019r-Oj for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:26:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756980AbXJDT0D (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:26:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756799AbXJDT0B (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:26:01 -0400 Received: from planck.djpig.de ([85.10.192.180]:3656 "EHLO planck.djpig.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755890AbXJDT0A (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:26:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by planck.djpig.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDE088231; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:25:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at planck.djpig.de Received: from planck.djpig.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (planck.djpig.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S5s7wwLIBVZ4; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:25:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by planck.djpig.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1EF2688232; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:25:50 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 08:17:07PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 07:24:05PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Should this not be in a test_expect_success, too? > > > > Since I do this several times and since it is easier to see what tests > > it belongs to if it isn't buried in one of them, I would say "no". > > Just to clarify: I meant making an own "test_expect_success", a la "setup" > in many other test scripts. Hmm, ok, will consider it. But as said, this should then be done for the whole file at once, so I will definetly not change this particular patch. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld www: http://www.djpig.de/