From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] remote-hg: add missing config for basic tests Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:48:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20121113054826.GC10995@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1352742068-15346-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <1352742068-15346-2-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20121112203207.GF4623@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Ramkumar Ramachandra To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 13 06:48:49 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 1TY9Mb-0000Ca-L8 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:48:45 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753312Ab2KMFsb (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:48:31 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:45589 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752725Ab2KMFsb (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:48:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 19880 invoked by uid 107); 13 Nov 2012 05:49:19 -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; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:49:19 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:48:26 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:46:36AM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> +setup () { > >> + ( > >> + echo "[ui]" > >> + echo "username = A U Thor " > >> + ) >> "$HOME"/.hgrc > >> +} > > > > This makes sense, but I wonder if we should use something different from > > the git author ident set up by the test scripts, just to double check > > that we do not have any bugs in confusing the two during the import. > > I don't know, but these tests would not check for any of those issues. > When such tests are added I would prefer the author to use to be > explicitly defined, but lets see. It's OK if we do not add more explicit tests at this point. I'd just rather set a safer precedent on the off chance that it might catch something in a later test, just as we use separate GIT_AUTHOR_* and GIT_COMMITTER_* in the rest of the test suite. If the choice were not completely arbitrary and had some maintenance cost, I might be more concerned, but as far as I can tell, one name is as good as another at this point. Any objection to me marking it up as I apply? -Peff