From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthieu Moy Subject: Re: v3 [PATCH 2/2] status:introduce status.branch to enable --branch by default Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:51:58 +0200 Message-ID: References: <51b5ede3.41a42a0a.02a1.3464SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, Jorge Juan Garcia Garcia , Mathieu Lienard--Mayor To: Ramkumar Ramachandra X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 11 09:52:12 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UmJND-0000ib-0C for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:52:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753090Ab3FKHwG (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:52:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.imag.fr ([129.88.30.5]:51631 "EHLO shiva.imag.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752553Ab3FKHwF (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:52:05 -0400 Received: from mail-veri.imag.fr (mail-veri.imag.fr [129.88.43.52]) by shiva.imag.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5B7pwun008658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:51:58 +0200 Received: from anie.imag.fr ([129.88.7.32]) by mail-veri.imag.fr with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UmJN0-0001Kl-UR; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:51:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Ramkumar Ramachandra's message of "Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:00:45 +0530") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (shiva.imag.fr [129.88.30.5]); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:51:59 +0200 (CEST) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > wrote: >> [...] > > Good change. > >> diff --git a/t/t7508-status.sh b/t/t7508-status.sh >> index 9a07f15..958617a 100755 >> --- a/t/t7508-status.sh >> +++ b/t/t7508-status.sh > > I expected one test. Two, at most. This is a bit overzealous. I actually had this discussion with Jorge (in real life). I first thought this was too much, and I think we already removed one rendundant test. But actually, this should be "two at least", since you really want to test whether --[no-]branch takes precedence over status.branch or not, in addition to testing status.branch alone. The last two tests are less important, but they also test something (in short: what happens when branch.status is set to something other than "true"). So I think it makes sense to keep them. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/