From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] make test output coloring more intuitive Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:05:00 -0400 Message-ID: <20120919180500.GD11699@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120918213617.GB2567@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> <1348074915-19985-1-git-send-email-git@adamspiers.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git list , Junio C Hamano To: Adam Spiers X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 19 20:05:14 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TEOe9-0003zr-43 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:05:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932865Ab2ISSFE (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:05:04 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:49790 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932791Ab2ISSFD (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:05:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 2805 invoked by uid 107); 19 Sep 2012 18:05:27 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:05:27 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:05:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1348074915-19985-1-git-send-email-git@adamspiers.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 06:15:09PM +0100, Adam Spiers wrote: > This series of commits attempts to make test output coloring > more intuitive, so that: > > - red is _only_ used for things which have gone unexpectedly wrong: > test failures, unexpected test passes, and failures with the > framework, > > - yellow is _only_ used for known breakages and skipped tests, and > > - green is _only_ used for things which have gone to plan and > require no further work to be done. Thanks, I like this much better than the original (and it's much easier to review broken apart like this). I raised a few minor questions in the refactoring patch, but other than that (and assuming your answers are what I expect, I do not care enough about them to block the series), it looks very good. The new "a passing expect_failure is a breakage" is a good thing. When it's unexpected, it will help call attention to it and let us figure out early what changed. And when it is expected (because you are fixing the breakage), it is an easy way to remind you to update the tests. :) Thanks for working on it. -Peff