On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> Daniel Rall wrote:
> >On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Daniel Rall wrote:
> >>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> >>>We need some more status regression tests, do you mind writing one
> >>>for this scenario? I'll probably add some more later.
> >>I modified the test for issue #2533 (status test #24) to also use
> >>'-vN', which is a good regression test variation in the first place.
> >I committed the test case as XFail, so it'll be there available when
> >you start testing tomorrow, Paul.
> I've made a new version of the patch as committed in r21638 which
> doesn't store the root folder in the status array, but solves it locally
> in the close_directory call.
> It seems like this patch keeps the fix for issue 2533, without the bad
> side-effects of the previous one.
> Note: this patch is based on r21637, so to test it you first have to
> revert r21638 (at least the changes in status.c).
This fixed #2533 in a much simpler fashion, so I committed a variation
of it yesterday with some tweaks, and removed the XFail from our test
Lieven indicated he'd work on a final test case variation to get us
complete regression coverage.
Received on Thu Sep 28 20:36:45 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored