Re: Re*: Segfault in git when using git logs

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

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

>> +# Basic command line option parsing
>> +test_expect_success '-L is incompatible with pathspec' '
>> +	# This may fail due to "no such path a.c in commit",
>> +	# or "-L is incompatible with pathspec". Either is acceptable.
>> +	test_must_fail git log -L1,1:a.c -- a.c &&
>
> This test confuses me. What are we looking for here? Presumably we'd
> fail with:
>
>   git log -L1,1:a.c
>
> too. If the test were "basic command line parsing", I could see checking
> that. But that's only what the comment says.

Yeah, I was undecided to have a single test that covers all (which I
ended up with) or a sequence of individual tests (which I wrote on
the title).

>> +	# This must fail due to "-L is incompatible with pathspec".
>> +	test_must_fail git log -L1,1:b.c -- b.c &&
>
> Right, this is what we fixed. Would using test_i18ngrep on the stderr be
> better than the comment?

I do not care either way myself ;-)

>> +	# These must fail due to "follow requires one pathspec".
>> +	test_must_fail git log -L1,1:b.c --follow &&
>> +	test_must_fail git log --follow -L1,1:b.c &&
>
> These are really tests of --follow, but I don't mind seeing them here as
> reinforcement for the concepts that the commit message claims.
>
>> +	# This may fail due to "-L is incompatible with pathspec",
>> +	# or "-L is incompatible with pathspec". Either is acceptable.
>> +	test_must_fail git log --follow -L1,1:b.c -- b.c
>
> Should one of those be "-L is incompatible with --follow"? Though of
> course we did not add such a check, so we know that it will be "-L is
> incompatible with pathspec", even without the --follow.

The comment seems utterly wrong here.  I may reroll after taking a
nap or something ;-)