From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] t3200: clean up checks for file existence Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:16:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20110913171612.GB32251@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110909193033.GA31184@sigill.intra.peff.net> <49578782dd114220aa2562b5bd29755fc2bdd0fa.1315597137.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20110909194357.GA31446@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4E6B6647.7090802@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20110913035724.GA4828@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4E6F48C4.3030407@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20110913161358.GB28634@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v62kwxt4b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 13 19:16:20 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 1R3Wap-000853-Cf for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:16:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755693Ab1IMRQP (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:16:15 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:45057 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753997Ab1IMRQO (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:16:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 30792 invoked by uid 107); 13 Sep 2011 17:17:07 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:17:07 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:16:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v62kwxt4b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:13:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > In the longer term, we might want to update these tests further so that > they do not fail when implementation is updated not to write loose refs, > e.g. Yeah, I noticed that, too, but figured to leave it for when such a change came about (which is probably going to need to fix tests everywhere, not just here). I'm happy to fix this area now, though, if you want. -Peff