From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t3200-branch: test setting branch as own upstream Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 03:37:19 -0500 Message-ID: <20140228083718.GA11480@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1393556659-32717-1-git-send-email-modocache@gmail.com> <20140228053703.GA32556@sigill.intra.peff.net> <531032DD.9000904@viscovery.net> <20140228071401.GA1229@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140228072606.GA622@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Brian Gesiak X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 28 09:37:29 2014 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 1WJIwh-0003wn-7v for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:37:27 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751399AbaB1IhW (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 03:37:22 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58566 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750927AbaB1IhV (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 03:37:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 18596 invoked by uid 102); 28 Feb 2014 08:37:21 -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, 28 Feb 2014 02:37:21 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 03:37:19 -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 Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:28:38PM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote: > I would be in favor of using test_i18ngrep, but it seems like this > test file overwhelmingly uses test_(i18n)cmp, even when inspecting > stderr output. We generally prefer "cmp" checks to "grep" checks, because they are more rigorous. However, when testing human-readable output which may change, sometimes being too specific can simply make the tests brittle and annoying. Using a forgiving regex that matches keywords can be helpful. So there's definitely some room for judgement. I think what you posted as v2 looks OK. > Making double-sure that all tests pass when run with "sh -x" seems > like a larger endeavor. > > Of course, I'd be happy to submit several patches if there's support > for such a change. But as Peff points out it will be a large diff. Yeah, I don't think it's worth the effort. If you feel like continuing on this series, converting the warning() into a die() would be a much more productive use of time (but if you don't, I do not see any reason not to take the patches you've posted). -Peff