From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] t5516 (fetch-push): introduce mk_test_with_name() Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:59:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20130322145936.GD3083@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1363938756-13722-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <1363938756-13722-4-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <20130322144454.GA3083@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vmwtv8p1c.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Ramkumar Ramachandra , Git List , Jonathan Nieder To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 22 16:00:18 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 1UJ3S4-0000YO-Mh for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:00:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933730Ab3CVO7r (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:59:47 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:35769 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933673Ab3CVO7o (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:59:44 -0400 Received: (qmail 1353 invoked by uid 107); 22 Mar 2013 15:01:29 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:01:29 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:59:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vmwtv8p1c.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:52:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > I think this is OK, and I do not mind if it gets applied. But what I was > > hinting at in my earlier mail was that we might want to do this (I have > > it as a separate patch on top of your 3/6 here, but it would make more > > sense squashed in): > > I would prefer to see a preparatory patch to teach mk_test/mk_empty > to _always_ take the new name (i.e. the result of your patch) and > then do whatever new things on top. I think that is what my patch does (it is meant to come at the point of 3/6, and then the rest would need to be rebased to just use "mk_test" instead of "mk_test_with_name"). > By the way, I am planning to _not_ look at new stuff today. I'd > rather see known recent regressions addressed (and unknown ones > discovered and squashed) before we move forward, and I would > appreciate if regular contributors did the same. Yeah, I have several to look at (the "subdir/" in gitattributes is the biggest one, I think). -Peff