From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: name pack files after trailer hash Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:18:06 -0500 Message-ID: <20131206221805.GE25620@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <211D44CB-64A2-4FCA-B4A7-40845B97E9A1@ancientrocklab.com> <20131128092935.GC11444@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20131204200850.GB16603@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20131205160418.GA27869@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20131205202807.GA19042@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Shawn Pearce , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 06 23:18:17 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 1Vp3ix-00032L-Pz for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 23:18:16 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759490Ab3LFWSK (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:18:10 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:51879 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1758737Ab3LFWSI (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:18:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 11805 invoked by uid 102); 6 Dec 2013 22:18:07 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:18:07 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:18:06 -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 Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:59:45PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > One test needs to be updated, because it actually corrupts a > > pack and expects that re-packing the corrupted bytes will > > use the same name. It won't anymore, but we can easily just > > use the name that pack-objects hands back. > > Re-reading the tests in that script, I am not sure if keeping these > tests is even a sane thing to do, by the way. It "expects" that > certain breakages are propagated, and anybody who breaks that > expectation by improving pack-objects etc. to catch such breakages > will be yelled at by breaking the test that used to pass. I had a similar thought, but I figured I would leave it for the person who _does_ make that change. The yelling will be a good signal that they've got it right, and they can clean up the test (either by dropping it, or modifying it to check the right thing) at that point. > Seeing that the way the test scripts are line-wrapped follows the > ancient convention, I suspect that this may be because it predates > our more recent best practice to document known breakages with > test_expect_failure. I read it more as "make sure that the v1 index breaks, so when we are testing v2 we know it is not an accident that we notice the breakage". But I also see your reason, and I think it would be fine to use test_expect_failure. -Peff