Re: [PATCH] t3200-branch.sh: use "--set-upstream-to" in test

[Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1546 bytes --]

On Tuesday 05 June 2018 04:54 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> 
> Though arguably the test name could be more descriptive and tell why
> it should fail.
> 

That's arguable, indeed. I was about to send a patch that gives a better
description for the test. I didn't do it as I started wondering, Is it
even worth testing whether a removed option fails? Is this done for
other options that have been removed in the past? Should we just remove
the test completely?

-- 
Sivaraam

QUOTE:

“The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience,
and Hubris.”

	- Camel book

Sivaraam?

You possibly might have noticed that my signature recently changed from
'Kaartic' to 'Sivaraam' both of which are parts of my name. I find the
new signature to be better for several reasons one of which is that the
former signature has a lot of ambiguities in the place I live as it is a
common name (NOTE: it's not a common spelling, just a common name). So,
I switched signatures before it's too late.

That said, I won't mind you calling me 'Kaartic' if you like it [of
course ;-)]. You can always call me using either of the names.


KIND NOTE TO THE NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER:

As I'm not a native English speaker myself, there might be mistaeks in
my usage of English. I apologise for any mistakes that I make.

It would be "helpful" if you take the time to point out the mistakes.

It would be "super helpful" if you could provide suggestions about how
to correct those mistakes.

Thanks in advance!


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]