From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: [JGIT PATCH 4/5] Define Patch to parse a sequence of patch FileHeaders Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:41:37 -0800 Message-ID: <20081211204137.GJ32487@spearce.org> References: <1228971522-28764-1-git-send-email-spearce@spearce.org> <200812111934.13218.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> <20081211183954.GH32487@spearce.org> <200812112139.29875.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Robin Rosenberg X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 11 21:43:29 2008 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 1LAsNV-00048l-2E for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:43:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757431AbYLKUlj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:41:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757413AbYLKUli (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:41:38 -0500 Received: from george.spearce.org ([209.20.77.23]:48205 "EHLO george.spearce.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757374AbYLKUli (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:41:38 -0500 Received: by george.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8770638200; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:41:37 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200812112139.29875.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Robin Rosenberg wrote: > ...Quick, quick, find something else to pick on.. :-> Heh, you'll get more patches again from me today, so there'll still be more to pick on. :) > Yes. Very little of the code in TemporaryBuffer is covered by the unit tests > and number of conditionals in there are rather large. I tried messing with > the constants in there to improve that and then PatchTest started to fail. > > Here are the changes I tried with. I think it should still work with thes > changes. Rather than changing the other tests, we might want to create > a special test for only the buffer class. Ok. I was thinking the same thing actually, that I should spend a bit of time today and try to get coverage on TemporaryBuffer. I'll write a unit test for it. -- Shawn.