From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Wong Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] t9159-*.sh: Don't use the svn '@' syntax Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:57:26 +0000 Message-ID: <20110913075726.GA15066@dcvr.yhbt.net> References: <4E21D295.7020600@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> <7vvcuy82kn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4E269AB6.8070207@drmicha.warpmail.net> <4E27098B.906@vilain.net> <4E6BA0FA.9070103@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sam Vilain , Michael J Gruber , Junio C Hamano , GIT Mailing-list , mhagger@alum.mit.edu To: Ramsay Jones X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 13 09:57:39 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 1R3Ns8-0000VG-Tu for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:57:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755308Ab1IMH52 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:57:28 -0400 Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net ([64.71.152.64]:34917 "EHLO dcvr.yhbt.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755188Ab1IMH51 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:57:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1CF1F432; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E6BA0FA.9070103@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ramsay Jones wrote: > Hmm, I was hoping that someone would say something like: > > "This test does not depend on the difference between the peg revision > and the operative revision, because the history represented in the test > repo is so simple that there *is* no difference, so Acked By: ... " Unfortunately, I remain perpetually confused w.r.t peg revisions vs "-r" and how it's handled differently between different SVN versions. > But, since that didn't happen, maybe the patch given below would be more > acceptable? (I personally prefer the original patch ...) I'm much more comfortable with your below patch as it won't break on newer (and increasingly more widely-used) versions. > Given that I didn't quite follow Sam's explanation, I still don't know > if t9104-git-svn-follow-parent.sh needs to be changed (again, this test > *passes* for me), so ... :-P > Subject: [PATCH] t9159-*.sh: Add an svn version check How about something along the lines of: Subject: [PATCH] t9159-*.sh: skip for mergeinfo test for svn <= 1.4 t9159 relies on the command-line syntax of svn >= 1.5. Given the declining install base of older svn versions, it is not worth our time to support older svn syntax. Acked-by: Eric Wong Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones ? > diff --git a/t/t9159-git-svn-no-parent-mergeinfo.sh b/t/t9159-git-svn-no-parent-mergeinfo.sh > index 85120b7..69e4815 100755 > --- a/t/t9159-git-svn-no-parent-mergeinfo.sh > +++ b/t/t9159-git-svn-no-parent-mergeinfo.sh > @@ -2,6 +2,14 @@ > test_description='git svn handling of root commits in merge ranges' > . ./lib-git-svn.sh > > +svn_ver="$(svn --version --quiet)" > +case $svn_ver in > +0.* | 1.[0-4].*) > + skip_all="skipping git-svn test - SVN too old ($svn_ver)" > + test_done > + ;; > +esac > + > test_expect_success 'test handling of root commits in merge ranges' ' > mkdir -p init/trunk init/branches init/tags && > echo "r1" > init/trunk/file.txt && > --