From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] t1508 (at-combinations): test branches separately Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:30:37 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1367501974-6879-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <1367501974-6879-3-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Git List , Junio C Hamano To: Ramkumar Ramachandra X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 02 19:30:46 2013 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 1UXxLB-0000zy-JH for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 02 May 2013 19:30:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759198Ab3EBRak (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2013 13:30:40 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42]:35261 "EHLO mail-la0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757005Ab3EBRai (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2013 13:30:38 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id fq13so776402lab.1 for ; Thu, 02 May 2013 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ed1fP7ySK+LnsV/Io+xAA+O14QkNutrWdJ95mmPFhGo=; b=vhLPsYcH/IJODc2bJ19JYQrkxmMJSxdoHsTvw/lbDYQDBtlmdAL9s/oAmXXNAmiuEl pozj1w/v4A2tB2ep1Xhg4Gsa4IIC2PR/cQyQ1tNo0U4gZKyZDwayQfaVrOMtJSF6xAo2 Bi5bWJY6sI+7T6XWFyLQqPL8bBBjjRMYK6jRwr4ewfpbAmDrxsM1lLgjv3u5xK9yEM4g Pj7IyRE/lLFZ8GNIdzqpnQQL9yzALV0nM+bWBY54qxVZ8qWX+lUFa3HDxAHM484/wQkD wnUx2+Zfcy0/+OPgEMJFAz9bnymASzUtAevD7ca+sOXXURgsH+Rg/+QBVsDmcWNopdv/ D8Pg== X-Received: by 10.152.87.69 with SMTP id v5mr2924946laz.24.1367515837136; Thu, 02 May 2013 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.83.167 with HTTP; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> I'm not sure about this. If we introduce a check that fails, we would >> have to do: >> >> check HEAD refs/heads/new-branch "" failure >> >> Which doesn't seem clean. Perhaps it makes more sense to always add >> the type of check: >> >> check HEAD ref refs/heads/new-branch > > I think you misunderstood. Failure looks like this: > > check "@@{u}" ref refs/heads/upstream-branch failure > > And corresponding success like this: > > check "@@{u}" refs/heads/upstream-branch > > We can make the "ref" compulsory if you like. I thought about it too. I think it's less surprising. -- Felipe Contreras