mirrors/git
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-13 20:53:02 +01:00
Code Activity
git/t/t7101-reset.sh

64 lines
1.4 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2006 Shawn Pearce
#
test_description='git-reset should cull empty subdirs'
. ./test-lib.sh
test_expect_success \
'creating initial files' \
'mkdir path0 &&
cp ../../COPYING path0/COPYING &&
Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-03 07:52:14 +02:00
git add path0/COPYING &&
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
git-commit -m add -a'
test_expect_success \
'creating second files' \
'mkdir path1 &&
mkdir path1/path2 &&
cp ../../COPYING path1/path2/COPYING &&
cp ../../COPYING path1/COPYING &&
cp ../../COPYING COPYING &&
cp ../../COPYING path0/COPYING-TOO &&
Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-03 07:52:14 +02:00
git add path1/path2/COPYING &&
git add path1/COPYING &&
git add COPYING &&
git add path0/COPYING-TOO &&
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
git-commit -m change -a'
test_expect_success \
'resetting tree HEAD^' \
'git-reset --hard HEAD^'
test_expect_success \
'checking initial files exist after rewind' \
'test -d path0 &&
test -f path0/COPYING'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
'checking lack of path1/path2/COPYING' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
'! test -f path1/path2/COPYING'
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
'checking lack of path1/COPYING' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
'! test -f path1/COPYING'
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
'checking lack of COPYING' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
'! test -f COPYING'
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
'checking checking lack of path1/COPYING-TOO' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
'! test -f path0/COPYING-TOO'
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
'checking lack of path1/path2' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
'! test -d path1/path2'
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
'checking lack of path1' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
'! test -d path1'
Make git-reset delete empty directories When git-reset --hard is used and a subdirectory becomes empty (as it contains no tracked files in the target tree) the empty subdirectory should be removed. This matches the behavior of git-checkout-index and git-read-tree -m which would not have created the subdirectory or would have deleted it when updating the working directory. Subdirectories which are not empty will be left behind. This may happen if the subdirectory still contains object files from the user's build process (for example). [jc: simplified the logic a bit, while keeping the test script.]
2006-02-17 08:26:16 +01:00
test_done
Copy permalink