summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t3900-i18n-commit.sh
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorLibravatar Jeff King <peff@peff.net>2011-05-26 16:41:18 -0400
committerLibravatar Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>2011-05-26 14:11:59 -0700
commit00ebc977484e18c03160b6319322858c088bce55 (patch)
tree5a1a1aeb93bd358ac0b0e7f4a332e809076bdaf1 /t/t3900-i18n-commit.sh
parentformat-patch: wrap email addresses after long names (diff)
downloadtgif-00ebc977484e18c03160b6319322858c088bce55.tar.xz
t: test subject handling in format-patch / am pipeline
Commit a1f6baa (format-patch: wrap long header lines, 2011-02-23) changed format-patch's behavior with respect to long header lines, but made no accompanying changes to the receiving side. It was thought that "git am" would handle these folded subjects fine, but there is a regression when using "am -k". Let's add a test documenting this. While we're at it, let's give more complete test coverage to document what should be happening in each case. We test three types of subjects: a short one, one long enough to require wrapping, and a multiline subject. For each, we test these three combinations: format-patch | am format-patch -k | am format-patch -k | am -k We don't bother testing "format-patch | am -k", which is nonsense (you will be adding in [PATCH] cruft to each subject). This reveals the regression above (long subjects have linebreaks introduced via "format-patch -k | am -k"), as well as an existing non-optimal behavior (multiline subjects are not preserved using "-k"). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Diffstat (limited to 't/t3900-i18n-commit.sh')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions