Hi Junio,
Understood. Thanks for the clarification.
Best regards,
Boxuan Li
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:49 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> "LI, BO XUAN" writes:
>
> > Thanks for your review! I can understand your point, but I've got a
> > quick question:
> >
> > What if format-patch really breaks an
"LI, BO XUAN" writes:
> Thanks for your review! I can understand your point, but I've got a
> quick question:
>
> What if format-patch really breaks and 'am' magically does not break?
Doesn't that indicate that you are not testing the result of "am"
adequately?
I am not saying it is *wrong* to
Hi Junio,
Thanks for your review! I can understand your point, but I've got a
quick question:
What if format-patch really breaks and 'am' magically does not break?
Then the two tests might still pass. On the contrary, with this patch,
we can verify the correctness of format-patch and safely rely
Boxuan Li writes:
> The exit code of the upstream in a pipe is ignored thus we should avoid
> using it. By writing out the output of the git command to a file, we can
> test the exit codes of both the commands.
We are trying to catch breakages in "am" in these two tests (see the
title of the tes
The exit code of the upstream in a pipe is ignored thus we should avoid
using it. By writing out the output of the git command to a file, we can
test the exit codes of both the commands.
Signed-off-by: Boxuan Li
---
Thanks to Eric Sunshine's review, I've removed spaces after '>'
and changed 'actu
5 matches
Mail list logo
