Re: [PATCH 2/5] t4211: demonstrate empty -L range crash

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

SZEDER Gábor [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

You could avoid the 'cat' here and patch in 4/5 by doing $(wc -l <b.c).

Correct.

Thanks, I like that better.

Unfortunately, what actually got queued on 'next', after applying this
fix-up and re-ordering the patch series, is slightly bogus.

The lesson is that one should not rebase while waiting for a flight
in a hurry X-<.

Will queue the following on top.

Thanks for spotting; really appreciated.

-- >8 --
Subject: t4211: fix incorrect rebase at f8395edc (range-set: satisfy non-empty ranges invariant)

Wnen I rewrote "cat b.c | wc -l" into "wc -l <b.c" to squash in a
suggestion on the list to this series, I screwed up subsequent
rebase.  Fix it up.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <redacted>
---
 t/t4211-line-log.sh | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/t/t4211-line-log.sh b/t/t4211-line-log.sh
index 00a850d..7665d67 100755
--- a/t/t4211-line-log.sh
+++ b/t/t4211-line-log.sh

@@ -68,7 +68,6 @@ test_bad_opts "-L :foo:b.c" "no match"
 # thus to demonstrate this particular bug, the empty -L range must follow a
 # non-empty -L range.
 test_expect_success '-L {empty-range} (any -L)' '
-	n=$(expr $(cat b.c | wc -l) + 1) &&
 	n=$(expr $(wc -l <b.c) + 1) &&
 	git log -L1,1:b.c -L$n:b.c
 '

-- 
1.8.3.4-1049-g22454dd

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

SZEDER Gábor [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

You could avoid the 'cat' here and patch in 4/5 by doing $(wc -l <b.c).

Correct.

Thanks, I like that better.

Unfortunately, what actually got queued on 'next', after applying this
fix-up and re-ordering the patch series, is slightly bogus.

The lesson is that one should not rebase while waiting for a flight
in a hurry X-<.

Will queue the following on top.

Thanks, that looks fine.