From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] send-email: add test for duplicate utf8 name Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:45:02 +0300 Message-ID: <20130620124502.GA24172@redhat.com> References: <1371731166-24015-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1371731166-24015-2-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <87a9ml9cou.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, SZEDER =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 20 14:44:39 2013 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 1UpeE9-0007n1-8w for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:44:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757867Ab3FTMod (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:44:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31242 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757716Ab3FTMoc (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:44:32 -0400 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5KCiHkS022232 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:44:17 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (vpn-200-33.tlv.redhat.com [10.35.200.33]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id r5KCiEf9015498; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:44:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87a9ml9cou.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.25 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 02:41:37PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes: > > > Verify that author name is not duplicated if it matches > > sender, even if it is in utf8. > > Small nit: if you make two patches out of it, add the tests first with > test_expect_failure. Then flip it to test_expect_success in the actual > code change. That makes it easy to verify that the test actually checks > the right thing, and that it was your code change that fixed it. I did this by reverting 1/2 and rerunning. But applying in reverse order means bisect can give us a setup where some tests fail, I thought it's a good idea to avoid that. > -- > Thomas Rast > trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch