From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] t4018: an infrastructure to test hunk headers Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:39:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20140324213913.GA14890@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <53282741.5010609@web.de> <52505977c20a480941ae1f85f50ffb7a0bbffedb.1395433874.git.j6t@kdbg.org> <20140324213659.GF13728@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Brandon Casey , git@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Rast , l.s.r@web.de, Johannes Schindelin To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 24 22:39:21 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 1WSCaW-0003tg-Mt for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 22:39:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751158AbaCXVjQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:39:16 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:46108 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750875AbaCXVjP (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:39:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 9179 invoked by uid 102); 24 Mar 2014 21:39:15 -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; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:39:15 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:39:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140324213659.GF13728@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:36:59PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > +How to write RIGHT test cases > > +============================= > > + > > +Insert the word "ChangeMe" (exactly this form) at a distance of > > +at least two lines from the line that must appear in the hunk header. > > The existing tests use -U1 to make writing cases simpler. Is there a > reason not to continue that (or if you found that porting the existing > cases was not a chore with -U3, I can buy that argument, too)? I take it back. You did keep "-U1" in the result. Is this "two lines" rule necessary, then? -Peff