Thread (1 message) 1 message, 1 author, 2020-08-14

Re: [PATCH v3] fetch: optionally allow disabling FETCH_HEAD update

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2020-08-14 01:32:50

Derrick Stolee [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
 * So, it becomes much smaller by punting the whole configuration
   thing, as we do not need the extra code for config parsing and
   there is no need for code to override the user configuration when
   driving "git fetch" from "git pull".
Sounds good. I'll incorporate this patch into my next version,
except it seems you dropped this test:
Yup.  

As we are not touching "pull" at all, the test I removed would make
as much sense as a hypothetical one where its "git pull" is replaced
with "git cat-file" or any other unrelated subcommand, and that is
why I removed it.  But I am OK if you resurrect it---everybody thinks
"fetch" and "pull" are closely related after all.

Thanks.


quoted hunk
diff --git a/t/t5521-pull-options.sh b/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
index 159afa7ac8..db1a381cd9 100755
--- a/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
+++ b/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
@@ -85,6 +85,13 @@ test_expect_success 'git pull --cleanup errors early on invalid argument' '
        test -s err)
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'git pull --no-write-fetch-head fails' '
+       mkdir clonedwfh &&
+       (cd clonedwfh && git init &&
+       test_expect_code 129 git pull --no-write-fetch-head "../parent" >out 2>err &&
+       test_must_be_empty out &&
+       test_i18ngrep "no-write-fetch-head" err)
+'
 
 test_expect_success 'git pull --force' '
        mkdir clonedoldstyle &&
which I changed "test_must_fail" to "test_expect_code 129" to
demonstrate that this is a usage error, not just any error.

Thanks,
-Stolee
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help