summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2015-04-28test-lib: turn on GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT by defaultLibravatar Jeff King1-1/+1
Now that the feature has had time to prove itself, and any topics in flight have had a chance to clean up any broken &&-chains, we can flip this feature on by default. This makes one less thing submitters need to configure or check before sending their patches. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-04-28t7502-commit.sh: fix a broken and-chainLibravatar Ramsay Jones1-1/+1
Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-25t9001: drop save_confirm helperLibravatar Jeff King1-10/+5
The idea of this helper is that we want to save the current value of a config variable and then restore it again after the test completes. However, there's no point in actually saving the value; it should always be restored to the string "never" (which you can confirm by instrumenting save_confirm to print the value it finds). Let's just replace it with a single test_when_finished call. Suggested-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-25t0020: use test_* helpers instead of hand-rolled messagesLibravatar Jeff King1-33/+5
These tests are not wrong, but it is much shorter and more idiomatic to say "verbose" or "test_must_fail" rather than printing our own messages on failure. Likewise, there is no need to say "happy" at the end of a test; the test suite takes care of that. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-25t: simplify loop exit-code status variablesLibravatar Jeff King2-16/+6
Since shell loops may drop the exit code of failed commands inside the loop, some tests try to keep track of the status by setting a variable. This can end up cumbersome and hard to read; it is much simpler to just exit directly from the loop using "return 1" (since each case is either in a helper function or inside a test snippet). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-25t: fix some trivial cases of ignored exit codes in loopsLibravatar Jeff King10-28/+24
These are all cases where we do a setup step of the form: for i in $foo; do set_up $i || break done && more_setup would not notice a failure in set_up (because break always returns a 0 exit code). These are just setup steps that we do not expect to fail, but it does not hurt to be defensive. Most can be fixed by converting the "break" to a "return 1" (since we eval our tests inside a function for just this purpose). A few of the loops are inside subshells, so we can use just "exit 1" to break out of the subshell. And a few can actually be made shorter by just unrolling the loop. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-25t7701: fix ignored exit code inside loopLibravatar Jeff King1-1/+1
When checking a list of file mtimes, we use a loop and break out early from the loop if any entry does not match. However, the exit code of a loop exited via break is always 0, meaning that the test will fail to notice we had a mismatch. Since the loop is inside a function, we can fix this by doing an early "return 1". Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-25t3305: fix ignored exit code inside loopLibravatar Jeff King1-6/+3
When we test deleting notes, we run "git notes remove" in a loop. However, the exit value of the loop will only reflect the final note we process. We should break out of the loop with a failing exit code as soon as we see a problem. Note that we can call "exit 1" here without explicitly creating a subshell, because the while loop on the right-hand side of a pipe executes in its own implicit subshell. Note also that the "break" above does not suffer the same problem; it is meant to exit the loop early at a certain number of iterations. We can bump it into the conditional of the loop to make this more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Acked-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-25t0020: fix ignored exit code inside loopsLibravatar Jeff King1-35/+19
A loop like: for f in one two; do something $f || break done will correctly break out of the loop when we see a failure of one item, but the resulting exit code will always be zero. We can fix that by putting the loop into a function or subshell, but in this case it is simpler still to just unroll the loop. We do add a helper function, which hopefully makes the end result even more readable (in addition to being shorter). Reported-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-25perf-lib: fix ignored exit code inside loopLibravatar Jeff King1-1/+1
When copying the test repository, we try to detect whether the copy succeeded. However, most of the heavy lifting is done inside a for loop, where our "break" will lose the exit code of the failing "cp". We can take advantage of the fact that we are in a subshell, and just "exit 1" to break out with a code. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-22t6039: fix broken && chainLibravatar Torsten Bögershausen1-1/+1
Add missing &&, detected by the --chain-lint option Signed-off-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t9158, t9161: fix broken &&-chain in git-svn testsLibravatar Michael J Gruber2-7/+7
All of these cases are moderate since they would most probably not lead to missed failing tests; either they would fail otherwise, or fail a rm in test_when_finished only. Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t9104: fix test for following larger parentsLibravatar Michael J Gruber1-4/+6
This test is special for several reasons: It ends with a "true" statement, which should be a no-op. It is not because the &&-chain is broken right before it. Also, looking at what the test intended to test according to 7f578c5 (git-svn: --follow-parent now works on sub-directories of larger branches, 2007-01-24) it is not clear how it would achieve that with the given steps. Amend the test to include the second svn id to be tested for, and change the tested refs to the ones which are to be expected, and which make the test pass. Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t4104: drop hand-rolled error reportingLibravatar Jeff King1-8/+2
This use of "||" fools --chain-lint into thinking the &&-chain is broken (and indeed, it is somewhat broken; a failure of update-index in these tests would show the patch file, even if we never got to the part of the test where we fed the patch to git-apply). The extra blocks were there to include more debugging output, but it hardly seems worth it; the user should know which command failed (because git-apply will produce error messages) and can look in the trash directory themselves. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t0005: fix broken &&-chainsLibravatar Jeff King1-2/+2
The ":" noop command always returns true, so it is fine to include these lines in an &&-chain (and it appeases --chain-lint). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t7004: fix embedded single-quotesLibravatar Jeff King1-1/+1
This test uses single quotes inside the single-quoted test snippet, which effectively makes the contents unquoted. Since they don't need quoted anyway, this isn't a problem, but let's switch them to double-quotes to make it more obviously correct. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t0050: appease --chain-lintLibravatar Jeff King1-4/+8
Some of the symlink tests check an either-or case using the "||". This is not wrong, but fools --chain-lint into thinking the &&-chain is broken (in fact, there is no && chain here). We can solve this by wrapping the "||" inside a {} block. This is a bit more verbose, but this construct is rare, and the {} block helps call attention to it. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t9001: use test_when_finishedLibravatar Jeff King1-20/+10
The confirmation tests in t9001 all save the value of sendemail.confirm, do something to it, then restore it at the end, in a way that breaks the &&-chain (they are not wrong, because they save the $? value, but it fools --chain-lint). Instead, they can all use test_when_finished, and we can even make the code simpler by factoring out the shared lines. Note that we can _almost_ use test_config here, except that: 1. We do not restore the config with test_unconfig, but by setting it back to some prior value. 2. We are not always setting a config variable. Sometimes the change to be undone is unsetting it entirely. We could teach test_config to handle these cases, but it's not worth the complexity for a single call-site. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t4117: use modern test_* helpersLibravatar Jeff King1-56/+10
We can use test_must_fail and test_path_* to avoid some hand-rolled if statements. This makes the code shorter, and makes it more obvious when we are breaking the &&-chain. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t6034: use modern test_* helpersLibravatar Jeff King1-53/+13
These say roughly the same thing as the hand-rolled messages. We do lose the "merge did not complete" debug message, but merge and write-tree are prefectly capable of writing useful error messages when they fail. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t1301: use modern test_* helpersLibravatar Jeff King1-13/+7
This shortens the code and fixes some &&-chaining. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t0020: use modern test_* helpersLibravatar Jeff King1-116/+28
This test contains a lot of hand-rolled messages to show when the test fails. We can omit most of these by using "verbose" and "test_must_fail". A few of them are for update-index, but we can assume it produces reasonable error messages when it fails. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t6030: use modern test_* helpersLibravatar Jeff King1-60/+31
We can get rid of a lot of hand-rolled error messages by using test_must_fail and test_expect_code. The existing code was careful to use "|| return 1" when breaking the &&-chain, but it did fool --chain-lint; the new code is more idiomatic. We also add some uses of test_when_finished, which is less cryptic and more robust than putting code at the end of a test. In two cases we run "git bisect reset" from a subshell, which is a problem for test_when_finished (it would not run). However, in both of these cases, we are performing the tests in one-off sub-repos, so we do not need to clean up at all (and in fact it is nicer not to if the user wants to inspect the trash directory after a failure). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t9502: fix &&-chain breakageLibravatar Jeff King1-4/+6
This script misses a trivial &&-chain in one of its tests, but it also has a weird reverse: it includes an &&-chain outside of any test_expect block! This "cat" should never fail, but if it did, we would not notice, as it would cause us to skip the follow-on test entirely (which does not appear intentional; there are many later tests which rely on this cat). Let's instead move the setup into its own test_expect_success block, which is the standard practice nowadays. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t7201: fix &&-chain breakageLibravatar Jeff King1-13/+6
One of these breakages is in setup, but one is more severe and may miss a real test failure. These are pulled out from the rest, though, because we also clean up a few other anachronisms. The most interesting is the use of this here-doc construct: (cat >... <<EOF ... EOF ) && It looks like an attempt to make the &&-chaining more natural by letting it come at the end of the here-doc. But the extra sub-shell is so non-idiomatic (plus the lack of "<<-") that it ends up confusing. Since these are just using a single line, we can accomplish the same thing with a single printf (which also makes the use of tab more obvious than the verbatim whitespace). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t3600: fix &&-chain breakage for setup commandsLibravatar Jeff King1-18/+18
As with the earlier patch to fix "trivial" &&-chain breakage, these missing "&&" operators are not a serious problem (e.g., we do not expect "echo" to fail). Ironically, however, inserting them shows that some of the commands _do_ fail. Specifically, some of the tests start by making sure we are at a commit with the string "content" in the file "foo". However, running "git commit" may fail because the previous test left us in that state already, and there is nothing to commit. We could remove these commands entirely, but they serve to document the test's assumptions, as well as make it robust when an earlier test has failed. We could use test_might_fail to handle all cases, but that would miss an unrelated failure to make the commit. Instead, we can just pass the --allow-empty flag to git-commit, which means that it will not complain if our setup is a noop. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: avoid using ":" for commentsLibravatar Jeff King2-10/+10
The ":" is not a comment marker, but rather a noop command. Using it as a comment like: : do something cmd1 && : something else cmd2 breaks the &&-chain, and we would fail to notice if "cmd1" failed in this instance. We can just use regular "#" comments instead. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: wrap complicated expect_code users in a blockLibravatar Jeff King4-9/+13
If we are expecting a command to produce a particular exit code, we can use test_expect_code. However, some cases are more complicated, and want to accept one of a range of exit codes. For these, we end up with something like: cmd; case "$?" in ... That unfortunately breaks the &&-chain and fools --chain-lint. Since these special cases are so few, we can wrap them in a block, like this: { cmd; ret=$?; } && case "$ret" in ... This accomplishes the same thing, and retains the &&-chain (the exit status fed to the && is that of the assignment, which should always be true). It's technically longer, but it is probably a good thing for unusual code like this to stand out. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: use test_expect_code instead of hand-rolled comparisonLibravatar Jeff King3-44/+38
This makes our output in the event of a failure slightly nicer, and it means that we do not break the &&-chain. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: use test_might_fail for diff and grepLibravatar Jeff King2-6/+6
Some tests run diff or grep to produce an output, and then compare the output to an expected value. We know the exit code we expect these processes to have (e.g., grep yields 0 if it produced output and 1 otherwise), so it would not make the test wrong to look for it. But the difference between their output and the expected output (e.g., shown by test_cmp) is much more useful to somebody debugging the test than the test just bailing out. These tests break the &&-chain to skip the exit-code check of the process. However, we can get the same effect by using test_might_fail. Note that in some cases the test did use "|| return 1", which meant the test was not wrong, but it did fool --chain-lint. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: fix &&-chaining issues around setup which might failLibravatar Jeff King5-8/+11
Many tests have an initial setup step that might fail based on whether earlier tests in the script have succeeded or not. Using a trick like "|| true" breaks the &&-chain, missing earlier failures (and fooling --chain-lint). We can use test_might_fail in some cases, which is correct and makes the intent more obvious. We can also use test_unconfig for unsetting config (and which is more robust, as well). The case in t9500 is an oddball. It wants to run cmd1 _or_ cmd2, and does it like: cmd1 || cmd2 && other_stuff It's not wrong in this case, but it's a bad habit to get into, because it breaks the &&-chain if used anywhere except at the beginning of the test (and we use the correct solution here, putting it inside a block for precedence). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: use test_must_fail instead of hand-rolled blocksLibravatar Jeff King3-14/+5
These test scripts likely predate test_must_fail, and can be made simpler by using it (in addition to making them pass --chain-lint). The case in t6036 loses some verbosity in the failure case, but it is so tied to a specific failure mode that it is not worth keeping around (and the outcome of the test is not affected at all). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: use verbose instead of hand-rolled errorsLibravatar Jeff King5-45/+10
Many tests that predate the "verbose" helper function use a pattern like: test ... || { echo ... false } to give more verbose output. Using the helper, we can do this with a single line, and avoid a || which interacts badly with &&-chaining (besides fooling --chain-lint, we hit the error block no matter which command in the chain failed, so we may often show useless results). In most cases, the messages printed by "verbose" are equally good (in some cases better; t6006 accidentally redirects the message to a file!). The exception is t7001, whose output suffers slightly. However, it's still enough to show the user which part failed, given that we will have just printed the test script to stderr. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: assume test_cmp produces verbose outputLibravatar Jeff King2-12/+3
Some tests call test_cmp, and if it fails show the actual output generated. This is mostly pointless, as test_cmp will already show a diff between the expected and actual output. It also fools --chain-lint by putting an "||" in the middle of the chain, so we'd rather not use this construct. Note that these cases actually show a pre-processed version of the data, rather than exactly what test_cmp would show. However, test_cmp's output is generally good for pointing the user in the right direction, and they can then dig in the trash directory themselves if they want to see more details. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: fix trivial &&-chain breakageLibravatar Jeff King43-68/+70
These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain, but during a setup phase. We may fail to notice failure in commands that build the test environment, but these are typically not expected to fail at all (but it's still good to double-check that our test environment is what we expect). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: fix moderate &&-chain breakageLibravatar Jeff King13-44/+44
These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain, but in a way that probably does not effect the outcome of the test. Most of these are of the form: some_cmd >actual test_cmp expect actual The main point of the test is to verify the output, and a failure in some_cmd would probably be noticed by bogus output. But it is good for the tests to also confirm that "some_cmd" does not die unexpectedly after producing its output. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t: fix severe &&-chain breakageLibravatar Jeff King14-19/+19
These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain, in a location which causes a significant portion of the test to be missed (e.g., the test effectively does nothing, or consists of a long string of actions and output comparisons, and we throw away the exit code of at least one part of the string). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-20t/test-lib: introduce --chain-lint optionLibravatar Jeff King2-0/+26
It's easy to miss an "&&"-chain in a test script, like: test_expect_success 'check something important' ' cmd1 && cmd2 cmd3 ' The test harness will notice if cmd3 fails, but a failure of cmd1 or cmd2 will go unnoticed, as their exit status is lost after cmd3 runs. The toy example above is easy to spot because the "cmds" are all the same length, but real code is much more complicated. It's also difficult to detect these situations by statically analyzing the shell code with regexps (like the check-non-portable-shell script does); there's too much context required to know whether a &&-chain is appropriate on a given line or not. This patch instead lets the shell check each test by sticking a command with a specific and unusual return code at the top of each test, like: (exit 117) && cmd1 && cmd2 cmd3 In a well-formed test, the non-zero exit from the first command prevents any of the rest from being run, and the test's exit code is 117. In a bad test (like the one above), the 117 is lost, and cmd3 is run. When we encounter a failure of this check, we abort the test script entirely. For one thing, we have no clue which subset of the commands in the test snippet were actually run. Running further tests would be pointless, because we're now in an unknown state. And two, this is not a "test failure" in the traditional sense. The test script is buggy, not the code it is testing. We should be able to fix these problems in the script once, and not have them come back later as a regression in git's code. After checking a test snippet for --chain-lint, we do still run the test itself. We could actually have a pure-lint mode which just checks each test, but there are a few reasons not to. One, because the tests are executing arbitrary code, which could impact the later environment (e.g., that could impact which set of tests we run at all). And two, because a pure-lint mode would still be expensive to run, because a significant amount of code runs outside of the test_expect_* blocks. Instead, this option is designed to be used as part of a normal test suite run, where it adds very little overhead. Turning on this option detects quite a few problems in existing tests, which will be fixed in subsequent patches. However, there are a number of places it cannot reach: - it cannot find a failure to break out of loops on error, like: cmd1 && for i in a b c; do cmd2 $i done && cmd3 which will not notice failures of "cmd2 a" or "cmd b" - it cannot find a missing &&-chain inside a block or subfunction, like: foo () { cmd1 cmd2 } foo && bar which will not notice a failure of cmd1. - it only checks tests that you run; every platform will have some tests skipped due to missing prequisites, so it's impossible to say from one run that the test suite is free of broken &&-chains. However, all tests get run by _somebody_, so eventually we will notice problems. - it does not operate on test_when_finished or prerequisite blocks. It could, but these tends to be much shorter and less of a problem, so I punted on them in this patch. This patch was inspired by an earlier patch by Jonathan Nieder: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/235913 This implementation and all bugs are mine. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-17Post 2.3 cyce (batch #10)Libravatar Junio C Hamano3-300/+321
Also declare that the next one will be called v2.4 ;-) Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-17Merge branch 'mg/doc-status-color-slot'Libravatar Junio C Hamano2-2/+5
Documentation fixes. * mg/doc-status-color-slot: config,completion: add color.status.unmerged
2015-03-17Merge branch 'mg/status-v-v'Libravatar Junio C Hamano3-67/+60
"git status" now allows the "-v" to be given twice to show the differences that are left in the working tree not to be committed. * mg/status-v-v: commit/status: show the index-worktree diff with -v -v t7508: test git status -v t7508: .gitignore 'expect' and 'output' files
2015-03-17Merge branch 'mg/sequencer-commit-messages-always-verbatim'Libravatar Junio C Hamano2-0/+33
"git cherry-pick" used to clean-up the log message even when it is merely replaying an existing commit. It now replays the message verbatim unless you are editing the message of resulting commits. * mg/sequencer-commit-messages-always-verbatim: sequencer: preserve commit messages
2015-03-17Merge branch 'sg/completion-remote'Libravatar Junio C Hamano2-5/+21
Code simplification. * sg/completion-remote: completion: simplify __git_remotes() completion: add a test for __git_remotes() helper function
2015-03-17Merge branch 'es/rebase-i-count-todo'Libravatar Junio C Hamano2-1/+11
"git rebase -i" recently started to include the number of commits in the insn sheet to be processed, but on a platform that prepends leading whitespaces to "wc -l" output, the numbers are shown with extra whitespaces that aren't necessary. * es/rebase-i-count-todo: rebase-interactive: re-word "item count" comment rebase-interactive: suppress whitespace preceding item count
2015-03-17Merge branch 'ak/git-done-help-cleanup'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-3/+2
Code simplification. * ak/git-done-help-cleanup: git: make was_alias and done_help non-static
2015-03-17Merge branch 'rs/zip-text'Libravatar Junio C Hamano2-2/+70
"git archive" can now be told to set the 'text' attribute in the resulting zip archive. * rs/zip-text: archive-zip: mark text files in archives
2015-03-17Merge branch 'rs/deflate-init-cleanup'Libravatar Junio C Hamano10-13/+2
Code simplification. * rs/deflate-init-cleanup: zlib: initialize git_zstream in git_deflate_init{,_gzip,_raw}
2015-03-13Sync with 2.3.3Libravatar Junio C Hamano3-2/+42
2015-03-13Git 2.3.3Libravatar Junio C Hamano4-3/+43
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-13Merge branch 'mr/doc-clean-f-f' into maintLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+6
Documentation update. * mr/doc-clean-f-f: Documentation/git-clean.txt: document that -f may need to be given twice