From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3B120D09 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752855AbdDOKDp (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:03:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:64495 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752102AbdDOKDo (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:03:44 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE3179181; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:03:42 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=hYv3J4ZgWW7lKYpgdgmWWqR+LEg=; b=SWpdRd dECba9Nh0FZXn4dPLxmntR/4uu9qVN2M0WR5iJWl+NLTFLC/hkqXCDt0GPhsGiDH g5T2UMRGKo/AlvITOMrBSqeNkf0PWQ/romqbNlaVNETbo6HpmsuSd9OZmlCwAFsn 6AuZ9GBYZb5skTTfX+pDOZwpLNpdQX70HAkBM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=jK2GsIMQ5fENP0RzFWj+MCS/ZmE2W6Sv 6kMquJIbEh5tOxGyQxaeEUL23H+x55HoSYc039FoHSyJKgxEyAxPlUkLd8LGAFWn fn8fnZEbeLEFLrpIsOtLc1uyNGU7tX8rQ5yWPoWPRBvtvpmyUvpwye5Q9SYCMoXd fT/eEkipboc= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630B67917F; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C72D77917E; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:03:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Giuseppe Bilotta Cc: Git ML , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] rebase: pass --[no-]signoff option to git am References: <20170414225713.29710-1-giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 03:03:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Giuseppe Bilotta's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:36:44 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CDCE21E8-21C2-11E7-B6DB-E680B56B9B0B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Giuseppe Bilotta writes: >> We need new tests for "git rebase --signoff" that makes sure this >> works as expected and only when it should. > > Would the norm in this case be to introduce the test in the same > commit, or in a previous commit (as in: this is the feature we want to > implement, it obviously doesn't work now, but the next commit will fix > that), or in a subsequent one? For a new feature (especially with this small implementation), it is best to have the test in the same commit. We often use the "start with expect_failure, update the code while flipping _failure to _success" pattern but that is primarily suitable for bugfixes.