From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] Use git diff instead of diff in t7201 Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:21:48 -0800 Message-ID: <7v3as664nn.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v1w7r7yv0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vr6fq6di0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 06 06:22:51 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JMck8-0002va-K0 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2008 06:22:45 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751254AbYBFFWK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:22:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751232AbYBFFWJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:22:09 -0500 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:52944 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751161AbYBFFWI (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:22:08 -0500 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566631901B0; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:22:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9B2192393; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:22:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Daniel Barkalow's message of "Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:30:00 -0500 (EST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Daniel Barkalow writes: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> My preference is NEVER using "git diff" when comparing expected >> result and the actual output from git. When "git diff" has >> breakage, it would break unrelated tests and make debugging >> needlessly harder. > > Certainly, although we seem to do a lousy job of ordering tests currently > such that the tests that fail are the ones for the thing that's broken; Yeah, Porcelains have become we take for granted ;-).