From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] tests: Prepare --textconv tests for correctly-failing conversion program Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:39:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20100928143928.GA8918@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <66d4603c7e21561557f612690d6196e7ae0b38f9.1285351816.git.kirr@landau.phys.spbu.ru> <7vsk0vyriw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100928120722.GA29525@landau.phys.spbu.ru> <20100928132356.GA5829@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20100928143540.GA30357@landau.phys.spbu.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Axel Bonnet , Cl??ment Poulain , Diane Gasselin , Matthieu Moy To: Kirill Smelkov X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 28 16:39:40 2010 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 1P0bLG-000213-0U for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:39:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755505Ab0I1Ojc (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:39:32 -0400 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:45939 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752006Ab0I1Ojb (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:39:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 29516 invoked by uid 111); 28 Sep 2010 14:39:31 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:39:31 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:39:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100928143540.GA30357@landau.phys.spbu.ru> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 06:35:40PM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > > > t/t4042-diff-textconv-caching.sh | 4 ++-- > > > > Why are we touching t4042 at all in this series? We are not actually > > adding any tests to it, AFAICT. > > Because we want to catch potential wrong textconv invocation on non > "bin: " files there too? But we don't actually add any tests that display the problem there, do we? And even if we wanted to test the diff implementation, wouldn't t4030 be the write place to do that? t4042 is specifically about textconv caching. -Peff