From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 10/11] branch.c: use 'ref-filter' APIs Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:07:43 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1438067468-6835-1-git-send-email-Karthik.188@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Git , Christian Couder , Junio C Hamano To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 29 17:38:20 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 1ZKTQw-0007CL-UG for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:38:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753443AbbG2PiO (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:38:14 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:33113 "EHLO mail-ob0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753076AbbG2PiO (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:38:14 -0400 Received: by obdeg2 with SMTP id eg2so10005803obd.0 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=M8Aku3KxIm//UcIW07GRw/z8G04kcXaVqh7efdMOvao=; b=qCSpkGIh1g+tiUWy+DMBTH/htgw4lLuUJ9p6Jy491Ga0zBhre3wOj5Xnia9dzgVjkv wFoXquzwKfHppf5sMCIBbGTjEocWSlPPnTUpFqrmMuOrFz6a/CQcHvhMUIGuQ95aHWsk 7ZJKNlFyan9fVNAQ9ntSoW+SE1oCYsHZa6SgkNKsfIYmd4nadjc4GkLYOvxpjBD6zAMf hokvCNlieidmZjbIjS+Hr3VKY2exeDezrvZ0Jc+SnvTKHAED3z3Fh7vfPetqsOBLBP5E dbo9nCHcoXpi68z/3FepLv2CpIOt9yUB4JXVZbSj8o9bm/7riGApBtBnx/3oGf4KO8z6 LGaA== X-Received: by 10.182.33.38 with SMTP id o6mr40291689obi.41.1438184293403; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.26.73 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:37:43 -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 Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > I'm not sure what's the convention, but I think the test description > should give the expected behavior even with test_expect_failure. > > And please help the reviewers by saying what's the status wrt this test > (any plan on how to fix it?). > On the other hand I wonder if the test is even needed as, we don't really need it Cause we remove that ability of branch.c by using filter_refs(). -- Regards, Karthik Nayak