From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout: add a test for creating a new branch with regexp as a starting point Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:36:13 +0200 Message-ID: <201007300136.13501.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <20100729220111.GA28176@wo.int.altlinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "Dmitry V. Levin" , To: =?iso-8859-1?q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0_Bjarmason?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 30 01:36:50 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oecee-0001T4-LM for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:36:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758142Ab0G2Xgh convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:36:37 -0400 Received: from gwse.ethz.ch ([129.132.178.237]:46660 "EHLO gwse.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755459Ab0G2Xgg convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:36:36 -0400 Received: from CAS22.d.ethz.ch (172.31.51.112) by gws00.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.237) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:36:35 +0200 Received: from thomas.site (129.132.208.181) by CAS22.d.ethz.ch (172.31.51.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.702.0; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:36:14 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.34-12-desktop; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: =C6var Arnfj=F6r=F0 Bjarmason wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 22:01, Dmitry V. Levin wro= te: > > +test_expect_success checkout ' > > + git checkout -b new_branch :/first > > +' > > + > > +test_done >=20 > ...it looks like this can just be added to the end of > t2018-checkout-branch.sh instead of creating a new test. Creating a > new file just for a single test for such a simple feature is a bit of > an overkill. It should also use test_expect_failure unless you expect to have a fix soon, otherwise it would stop the test suite from running through. --=20 Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch