From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Beyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t3404: extra checks and s/! git/test_must_fail git/ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:46:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20080621014636.GG7369@leksak.fem-net> References: <20080620190037.GE7369@leksak.fem-net> <1213986614-19536-1-git-send-email-s-beyer@gmx.net> <20080620190037.GE7369@leksak.fem-net> <20080621071812.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Brandon Casey , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin , Christian Couder To: nanako3@lavabit.com X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 21 03:48:09 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K9sD3-0007FZ-47 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:48:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751956AbYFUBqr (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:46:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751462AbYFUBqr (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:46:47 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:54962 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751238AbYFUBqq (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:46:46 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2008 01:46:45 -0000 Received: from q137.fem.tu-ilmenau.de (EHLO leksak.fem-net) [141.24.46.137] by mail.gmx.net (mp061) with SMTP; 21 Jun 2008 03:46:45 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1499303 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/wqghb6PLwzv/MbqLpBXvyaGBFjMvvK6w1jkt+BI HVktatPcjPjc3q Received: from sbeyer by leksak.fem-net with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9sBY-00022K-4w; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:46:36 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080621071812.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, > > Perhaps I'm not consequent, but I thought that it's not worth it ;-) > > Doesn't that logic make the other s/!/test_must_fail/ changes > also not worth it? What is the reason behind the change? The s/!/test_must_fail/ is just an "extra" like "Hey, you're currently standing, can you bring me some tea?" In this case: "Oh, I'm currently adding some tests, so I can s/!/test_must_fail/" > I think your subject line and the message is worse than your > previous one. You are saying *HOW* you changed it, Not exactly. In the previous one I said, what my patch does: improve t3404. The latter one said it, too, but a little more specific. > without saying *WHY* nor *WHAT FOR*. That's right. The s/!/test_must_fail/ is, as I said, just an "extra". And one that does no harm at all. The others are tests that were useful during git sequencer prototype development, because once a test in the middle of the test suite failed because the branch was not correctly reset in one of the invocations of rebase-i in the first tests. Well, but I wonder if a long explanation is always necessary. It is on feature patches and bugfix patches. But here? Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Beyer , PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F