git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>,
	Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] t4203: test mailmap functionality directly rather than indirectly
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:55:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130712005517.GA8482@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cS7rxFzY8Q3gfTtJkggp-K62SVqsjCotbM3Bkm47L44gg@mail.gmail.com>

Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

>>> With the introduction of check-mailmap, it is now possible to check
>>> .mailmap functionality directly rather than indirectly as a side-effect
>>> of other commands (such as git-shortlog), therefore, do so.
>>
>> Does this patch mean that we will now ignore future breakages in
>> shortlog and blame if their mailmap integration becomes buggy?
>>
>> I am not convinced it is a good idea if that is what is going on.
>
> I meant to mention in the cover letter that this patch was open for
> debate, however, it does not eliminate all testing of these other
> commands.
>
> The tests in which git-check-mailmap is substituted for git-shortlog
> all worked against a simplistic two-commit repository. Those tests
> were checking the low-level mailmap functionality under various
> conditions and configurations; they were not especially checking any
> particular behavior of git-shortlog.
>
> There still remain a final eight tests which cover git-shortlog,
> git-log, and git-blame. These tests do check mailmap-related behavior
> of those commands, and they do so using a more involved seven-commit
> repository with "complex" mappings, so we have not necessarily lost
> any checks of mailmap integration for those commands.
>
> Would this patch become more palatable if I stated the above in the
> commit message?

My current thinking is "no" --- the patch has as a justification "Now
we can test these aspects of .mailmap handling directly with a
low-level tool instead of using the tool most people will use, so do
so", which sounds an awful lot like "Reduce test coverage of commonly
used tools, because we can".

But I imagine the actual motivation was something other than "because
we can".  For example, maybe the idea is that after this patch, it
should be easier to make cosmetic improvements to the shortlog, log,
and blame output and only have to change those final 8 tests that are
adequately covering the output?  If you have such plans and this patch
makes them easier, it could sound like a good patch as a stepping
stone toward that.

Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan

  reply	other threads:[~2013-07-12  0:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-11 14:55 [PATCH v2 0/4] add git-check-mailmap command Eric Sunshine
2013-07-11 14:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] builtin: " Eric Sunshine
2013-07-11 19:04   ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-12  3:28     ` Eric Sunshine
2013-07-12  5:47       ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-12  6:24         ` Eric Sunshine
2013-07-12  6:34           ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-12  6:39             ` Eric Sunshine
2013-07-11 14:55 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] t4203: test check-mailmap command invocation Eric Sunshine
2013-07-11 14:55 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] t4203: test mailmap functionality directly rather than indirectly Eric Sunshine
2013-07-11 19:07   ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-12  0:35     ` Eric Sunshine
2013-07-12  0:55       ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2013-07-12  2:37         ` Eric Sunshine
2013-07-12  5:48         ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-12  6:05           ` Eric Sunshine
2013-07-12  6:25             ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-11 14:55 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] t4203: consolidate test-repository setup Eric Sunshine

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130712005517.GA8482@google.com \
    --to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
    --cc=apelisse@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
    --cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).