Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix for git-rev-list --merge-order B ^A (A,B share common base)

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: 2005-06-30 10:11:23
>>>>> "JS" == Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> writes:

I am puzzled about this part.

JS> The unit test changes in this patch remove use of the --show-breaks 
JS> flags from certain unit tests. The changed --merge-order behaviour 
JS> changed the annotation that --show-breaks prints for certain test cases. 
JS> The new behaviour is reasonable and irrelevant to the intent of the tests
JS> so that tests have been changed to eliminate the spurious behaviour.

If the behaviour of --show-breaks subtly changes, and if that
changed behaviour is something still acceptable, why not update
the test to show the new expected results since you are updating
the test anyway?

Showing that "subtle" change in the diff may draw people's
attention and would help you to verify that the behaviour change
is not something that would be unacceptable to them.

Also if you are changing t6001, could you also merge Mark
Allen's BSD portability fix while you are at it?

    Message-ID: <20050628014337.18986.qmail@web41205.mail.yahoo.com>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Thu Jun 30 10:11:38 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-06-30 10:11:43 EST