Re: [PATCH] t5533: make it pass on case-sensitive filesystems

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Junio,

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > The newly-added test case wants to commit a file "c.t" (note the lower
> > case) when a previous test case already committed a file "C.t". This
> > confuses Git to the point that it thinks "c.t" was not staged when "git
> > add c.t" was called.
> >
> > Simply make the naming of the test commits consistent with the previous
> > test cases: use upper-case, and advance in the alphabet.
> >
> > This came up in local work to rebase the Windows-specific patches to the
> > current `next` branch. An identical fix was suggested by John Keeping.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > ---
> > Published-As: https://github.com/dscho/git/releases/tag/t5533-case-insensitive-v1
> > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/dscho/git t5533-case-insensitive-v1
> 
> Thanks.  It may make it easier to see to have a blank line here,
> separating them from the diffstat.

Good suggestion! I made it so:

	https://github.com/dscho/mail-patch-series/commit/1776cb18

> > base-commit: 9813b109b4ec6630220e5f3d8aff275e23cba59e
> 
> A totally unrelated tangent.
> 
> This line turns out to be less than useful at least in this
> particular case.
> 
> The fix is meant for jk/push-force-with-lease-creation topic, but I
> had to find it out by the old fashioned way, i.e. running blame for
> these lines in 'pu' to find eee98e74f9 is the culprit and then
> running "git branch --with eee98e74f9".  The only thing the line
> made easier is I _could_ start the blame at the named commit (which
> is on 'next') instead of 'pu'.  When I took that "base-commit"
> series, I was hoping that it would give us a lot more useful
> information.

Sorry for that. The way my mail-patch-series.sh script works is that it
tries to determine which branch between `master`, `next` or `pu` is the
base (and it then submits *all* commits that are on top of that branch).

So my branch was indeed based on `next` for that reason, not on
top of `jk/push-force-with-lease-creation`. Otherwise, I would have
resubmitted John's patches because the script would have determined that
my patch is on top of `master`, not on top of `next`.

Will try to think of a better way,
Dscho