From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] checkout --detached test: write supporting files before start of tests Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20120414022604.GB17535@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110320090111.GA15641@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110320090918.GB15948@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120413225901.GA13220@burratino> <20120413232535.GB13995@burratino> <20120413233346.GB16663@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120413234949.GF13995@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Piotr Krukowiecki , Git Mailing List , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 14 04:26:13 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SIsgm-0007QE-ND for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 04:26:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753449Ab2DNC0I (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:26:08 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:33671 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753288Ab2DNC0G (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:26:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 16027 invoked by uid 107); 14 Apr 2012 02:26:13 -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; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:26:13 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:26:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120413234949.GF13995@burratino> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:49:49PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > If anything, should this > > not be moving the cat inside the test_expect_success? > > That would be fine with me. It would involve changing the ' around > "master" to '\'' and would mean that if some later patch wants to use > the same message, the author will have to remember to factor it out. Ah, yeah, that is probably why I left it outside the test in the first place. > On the other hand, nothing about the message is specific to that test > assertion, so I am ok with the patch I sent, too. I don't care much either way. I just know that there are a million other places that set up "expect" right before the test, so it seems like a common exception to our rule. -Peff