summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t6029-merge-subtree.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2018-07-16t6000-t6999: fix broken &&-chainsLibravatar Eric Sunshine1-8/+8
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-03-23merge: refuse to create too cool a merge by defaultLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
While it makes sense to allow merging unrelated histories of two projects that started independently into one, in the way "gitk" was merged to "git" itself aka "the coolest merge ever", such a merge is still an unusual event. Worse, if somebody creates an independent history by starting from a tarball of an established project and sends a pull request to the original project, "git merge" however happily creates such a merge without any sign of something unusual is happening. Teach "git merge" to refuse to create such a merge by default, unless the user passes a new "--allow-unrelated-histories" option to tell it that the user is aware that two unrelated projects are merged. Because such a "two project merge" is a rare event, a configuration option to always allow such a merge is not added. We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do so and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others, because such a "two project merge" would be done after fetching the other project into some location in the working tree of an existing project and making sure how well they fit together, it is sufficient to allow a local merge without such an option pass-through from "git pull" to "git merge". Many tests that are updated by this patch does the pass-through manually by turning: git pull something into its equivalent: git fetch something && git merge --allow-unrelated-histories FETCH_HEAD If somebody is inclined to add such an option, updated tests in this change need to be adjusted back to: git pull --allow-unrelated-histories something Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-11-09tests: add missing &&Libravatar Jonathan Nieder1-1/+1
Breaks in a test assertion's && chain can potentially hide failures from earlier commands in the chain. Commands intended to fail should be marked with !, test_must_fail, or test_might_fail. The examples in this patch do not require that. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-01-17Extend merge-subtree tests to test -Xsubtree=dir.Libravatar Avery Pennarun1-1/+46
This tests the configurable -Xsubtree feature of merge-recursive. Signed-off-by: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-05-24tests: do not use implicit "git diff --no-index"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+2
As a general principle, we should not use "git diff" to validate the results of what git command that is being tested has done. We would not know if we are testing the command in question, or locating a bug in the cute hack of "git diff --no-index". Rather use test_cmp for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-03-13add test_cmp function for test scriptsLibravatar Jeff King1-1/+1
Many scripts compare actual and expected output using "diff -u". This is nicer than "cmp" because the output shows how the two differ. However, not all versions of diff understand -u, leading to unnecessary test failure. This adds a test_cmp function to the test scripts and switches all "diff -u" invocations to use it. The function uses the contents of "$GIT_TEST_CMP" to compare its arguments; the default is "diff -u". On systems with a less-capable diff, you can do: GIT_TEST_CMP=cmp make test Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-29Improve t6029 to check the real "subtree" caseLibravatar Miklos Vajna1-0/+47
t6029 already checks if subtree available and works like recursive. This patch adds code to test test the extra functionality the subtree merge strategy provides. Signed-off-by: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-23Add merge-subtree backLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+32
An earlier commit e1b3a2c (Build-in merge-recursive) made the subtree merge strategy backend unavailable. This resurrects it. A new test t6029 currently only tests the strategy is available, but it should be enhanced to check the real "subtree" case. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>