Re: [RFC/ PATCH 4/5] t3030: update porcelain expected message

[Diane Gasselin <diane.gasselin@ensimag.imag.fr>]

Le 10 juin 2010 03:59, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 10:40:20PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
>> Diane Gasselin <diane.gasselin@ensimag.imag.fr> writes:
>>
>> > From: Diane <diane.gasselin@ensimag.imag.fr>
>>
>> You did something strange with git format-patch or send-email. This
>> From header should appear in the header of your email, but not in the
>> body.
>
> The commit author is missing the last name, so send-email correctly
> includes the extra "From" header. Probably the user.name config variable
> needs updated (and the commit can be rebased and amended with
> --reset-author to take the new author).
>
I had my user name changed at a moment so I thought maybe it was due to that.
Thanks for the tip

>> > +cat> expected2 <<EOF
>> > +error: Your local changes to the files:
>> > +   a
>> > +would be overwritten by merge.
>> > +EOF
>>
>> I'd have phrased it like this:
>>
>> error: Your local changes to these files would be overwritten by merge:
>>       a
>>
>> to avoid splitting the message in two parts. It's more consistant with
>> the rest of Git (git status or git reset for example). Also, your
>> version would become hard to read if the file list is long.
>
> Yes, I think your version is much more readable.
>
> -Peff
>
Yes, I changed it. It makes grep much more easier for the tests.
For some errors, if in porcelain, the order of the arguments file and
action needs to be reversed but this is not a problem.