From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: bug? in checkout with ambiguous refnames Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:55:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20110111065509.GG10094@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110107104650.GA5399@pengutronix.de> <20110107194909.GB6175@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110107195417.GC6175@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 11 07:55:19 2011 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 1PcY8U-0006rR-Vt for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:55:19 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755378Ab1AKGzQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:55:16 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:54877 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752001Ab1AKGzL (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:55:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 11911 invoked by uid 111); 11 Jan 2011 06:55:11 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:55:11 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:55:09 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110107195417.GC6175@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 02:54:17PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > +test_expect_success 'checkout reports switch to detached HEAD' ' > + grep "Switched to branch" stderr && > + ! grep "^HEAD is now at" stderr Junio, one minor fixup here. The test is correct, but the description should read "checkout reports switch to branch", not "...detached HEAD". I had originally written the test the other way and forgot to update the description when I tweaked it. The error is in my ambiguity test, but got cut-and-pasted to your vagueness test, too. -Peff