From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [BUG] "git pull" will regress between 'master' and 'pu' Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:23:07 +0200 Organization: gmx Message-ID: <84c2d3dcb754d14a9f43deb7bbb6fd79@www.dscho.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Paul Tan To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 21 09:23:29 2015 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 1YkSWg-0002fp-4t for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:23:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751621AbbDUHXR (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:23:17 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:63245 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750751AbbDUHXO (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:23:14 -0400 Received: from www.dscho.org ([87.106.4.80]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lx83d-1ZPiPU27OT-016eMB; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:23:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Sender: johannes.schindelin@gmx.de User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.0 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Fgw0Ucx2/Jv6RCrNs3VkVFZgiZlJoSHqDZ4N4uKGvuHUyJ65v5E T1XB1DHUyxrsjiY/rNvi4/g09TfFqV5WtYNPKy08v1/oNwKvgeN4R9NkqcWtPvJ5MPSyn8t lRGMzLSu9vcfBFNkl4fflBxTCWLergVZtep4tTWrC71i4EVPzOdL+PvXbjLmct8/9mDiqNI wDvVug0cw74m3ziHz9ETQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi Junio, On 2015-04-20 21:28, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> This is primarily note-to-self; even though I haven't got around >> bisecting yet, I think I know I did some bad change myself. >> >> "git pull $URL $tag" seems to: >> >> * fail to invoke the editor without "--edit". >> * show the summary merge log message twice. > > We seem to be making a good progress on the discussion on this > specific issue, but a larger tangent of this is that we do not seem > to have test coverage to catch this regression. As we are planning > to rewrite "git pull", we need to make sure we have enough test > coverage to ensure that nothing will regress before doing so. Yes, the plan is to use code coverage tools to ensure that a decent amount of code paths/parameters is covered. Ciao, Dscho