From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] test-lib: tests can have multiple prerequisites Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:17:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20100426191703.GC10772@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20100421131255.GA2750@progeny.tock> <20100421133806.GA5595@progeny.tock> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Sixt , Don Slutz To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 26 21:17:15 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O6Tnu-0003p9-NX for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:17:15 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752742Ab0DZTRI convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:17:08 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:58823 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751658Ab0DZTRH (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:17:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 13410 invoked by uid 107); 26 Apr 2010 19:17:14 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:17:14 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:17:03 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100421133806.GA5595@progeny.tock> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 08:38:06AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Alas, I didn=E2=80=99t notice the thread with the almost identical pa= tch [1] > before writing this one. >=20 > Since I am painting it, I prefer this way. I find it intuitive and > can=E2=80=99t really see where the fuss about using some other coding= style > came from. So I would be very happy if someone who does understand > the fuss could come up with a comment to add to the commit message > about this. :) I liked commas better, but since you are doing the work of writing the patches, I will let it go. :) I do wonder if it might be less error-prone to have: test_expect_success PREREQ1 PREREQ2 'desc' 'test' instead of test_expect_success 'PREREQ1 PREREQ2' 'desc' 'test' which should just be something like while test $# -gt 2; do test_have_prereq "$1" || skip=3Dt shift done But if you think that's dumb, just ignore it. It is really not worth spending that much time on. -Peff