Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2014, #03; Fri, 14)

On 19.03.2014, at 11:53, Max Horn [off-list ref] wrote:

On 17.03.2014, at 18:01, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Torsten Bögershausen [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 2014-03-14 23.09, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

* ap/remote-hg-skip-null-bookmarks (2014-01-02) 1 commit
- remote-hg: do not fail on invalid bookmarks

Reported to break tests ($gmane/240005)
Expecting a reroll.

I wonder what should happen here.
The change breaks all the tests in test-hg-hg-git.sh
(And the breakage may prevent us from detecting other breakages)

The ideal situation would be to have an extra test case for the problem
which we try to fix with this patch.

[...]

The (or at least "a") root cause has actually been discovered. Would a patch that adds an xfail test case for it be acceptable?

As to the why the proposed patch causes test failures: I think this is due to the fact that remote-hg inserts a fake "master" branch (resp. "bookmark" in the hg terminology). Now, in those test cases, a hg repository gets created that actually contains a "null" bookmark named "master". When the proposed fix for the problem is added, this bookmarks gets ignored. But at that point, remote-hg already determined that there is a hg bookmark named "master", and adjusts how it works accordingly -- when we then remove that bookmarks, things go awry.

But I might be wrong here, and in any case, did not yet have time to come up with a proper fix.

Actually, scratch that, I just came up with a fix, and also tests. Will submit shortly.

I'd still like to know whether it is OK to submit further patches with (x?)failing test cases?