On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > diff --git a/t/t4150-am.sh b/t/t4150-am.sh > > index 89a5bacac..44807e218 100755 > > --- a/t/t4150-am.sh > > +++ b/t/t4150-am.sh > > @@ -983,7 +983,9 @@ test_expect_success 'am works with multi-line in-body > > headers' ' > > rm -fr .git/rebase-apply && > > git checkout -f first && > > echo one >> file && > > - git commit -am "$LONG" --author="$LONG <l...@example.com>" && > > + git commit -am "$LONG > > + > > + Body test" --author="$LONG <l...@example.com>" && > > Instead of "Body test", I would write something more descriptive like "Not a > continuation line because of blank line above", but I'm fine with either.
Yeah. I also wonder if we can make the indentation more obvious. I thought at first that the patch was whitespace mangled. :-/ Maybe: SP=" " && cat >msg <<-EOF && $LONG $SP This line is indented but not a header continuation. EOF git commit -F msg ... or something. It might also be easier to understand what's going on if this gets its own test. This is really just testing mailinfo. I wonder if it would make more sense in t5100, where we would not have to deal with all the commit/format-patch cruft. -Peff
