From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] t0000: drop "known breakage" test Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:22:27 -0500 Message-ID: <20131229072227.GB31788@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20131228092731.GA26337@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20131228093340.GC21109@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20131228205104.GA5544@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, John Keeping , Thomas Rast To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Dec 29 08:22:36 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 1VxAhl-0000AW-Nn for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 08:22:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751091Ab3L2HWa (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:22:30 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:51928 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750971Ab3L2HW3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:22:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 31317 invoked by uid 102); 29 Dec 2013 07:22:29 -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; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 01:22:29 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:22:27 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131228205104.GA5544@google.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:51:04PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > I am not _that_ bothered by the "known breakage", but AFAICT there is > > zero benefit to keeping this redundant test. > > Devil's advocate: it ensures that anyone wrapping git's tests (like > the old smoketest infrastructure experiment) is able to handle an > expected failure. Thanks. One of the things I love about open source is that as soon as I say "I can't see how...", the answer is crowd-sourced for me. :) That being said, even if the test has a non-zero possible value... > But in practice I don't mind the behavior before or after this patch. > If the test harness is that broken, we'll know. And people writing > code that wraps git's tests can write their own custom sanity-checks. ...I think for these reasons that the value is smaller than the disruption caused by the test, and the patch is a net win. -Peff