On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 5:53 PM Usman Akinyemi <usmanakinyemi202@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > + remote-http | remote-https | replay | request-pull | send-email | \ > > > + sh-i18n--envsubst | shell | show | stage | submodule | svn | \ > > > + upload-archive--writer | upload-pack | web--browse | whatchanged) > > > + expect_outcome=expect_failure ;; > > > + *) > > > + expect_outcome=expect_success ;; > > > + esac > > > + test_$expect_outcome "'git $cmd -h' outside a repository" ' > > > + test_expect_code 129 nongit git $cmd -h >usage && > > > + echo "Hello" && > > > > Woops! While basing some work on this branch, I spotted this "echo"—I > > assume it's leftover and didn't mean to be included here? Will drop > > locally for my own work. > > > Since you based your work on mine, does it mean I do not have to send > the updated patch ? That's more a question for Junio than me, but I'm comfortable rebasing my work on top of updated versions of your branch—and I would prefer to keep iterations of this series separate from my own, heh. Really I hope you'll squash my fixes in, and possibly a few others, and send another version? For example: - pickaxe is a failure because the message is about blame; - show is a failure because the message is about log _and_ show; - init-db is a failure because the message is about init; - whatchanged is a failure because the message is about log/show. Maybe these are "out of scope," which is fine—but I think they are working as intended? -- D. Ben Knoble
