Re: [eclipse7@gmx.net: [PATCH] diff: Only count lines in show_shortstats()]

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Alexander Strasser <eclipse7@gmx.net> writes:

Administrivia.

Please do not use Mail-Followup-To header to deflect direct response
to you away to other people.  When I want to reply to you and Cc
others, I do not want to see other people's name on To field for me
to edit and correct, and when somebody else wants to reply to you, I
do not want to see my name on its To line, as such a message may not
be of immediate interest for me.

> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> ...
>> >   I think I should have put you in CC. But I am not so sure about
>> > Git patch submission policies.
>> The policy is to CC everyone who might be interested, and also to add
>> TO:gitster@pobox.com, if the patch is intended for merging, as yours is.

Correction.  It is not "is intended for merging", but only when it
is *ready* to be merged, when stakeholders are happy with the patch.

>> So basically taking the address list from the discussion of e18872b
>> would be the simplest and most effective choice.

>   Yes, seems so. I was seeing changing line counts in GitStats output
> compared to older and newer Git versions. I found the exact commit with
> "git bisect" which was a big help.

Thanks.

>> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Strasser <eclipse7@gmx.net>
>> Small note: normally the paragraphs are not indented.
>
>   Noted. I probably should have also dropped the () in the subject. After
> submitting I noticed this notation was not used in analog log messages.
>
> [...]
>> > --- a/t/t4012-diff-binary.sh
>> > +++ b/t/t4012-diff-binary.sh
>> > @@ -36,6 +36,14 @@ test_expect_success '"apply --stat" output for binary file change' '
>> >  	test_i18ncmp expected current
>> >  '
>> >  
>> > +cat > expected <<\EOF
>> > + 4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > +EOF
>> > +test_expect_success 'diff with --shortstat' '
>> > +	git diff --shortstat >current &&
>> > +	test_cmp expected current
>> > +'
>> > +
>> The test is OK, and follows the style of surrounding tests, but current
>> style is slightly different:
>> - no space after '>'
>> - expected output is inlined if it is short
>> - test_i18ncmp is used, even if the message is not yet i18n-ized
>> 
>> Something like this:
>> test_expect_success 'diff --shortstat output for binary file change' '
>> 	echo " 4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)" >expect &&
>> 	git diff --shortstat >current &&
>> 	test_i18ncmp expect current
>> '
>
>   Should I rewrite the test for this patch? Or should it be changed for the
> whole file at once?

Please keep a bugfix patch to only fixes with tests.  Style fixes
should be done later after dust from more important changes (e.g. a
bugfix) settles.

Thanks.