From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Cc: nanako3@lavabit.com, Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>,
git@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t3404: extra checks and s/! git/test_must_fail git/
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:46:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7v4p7nazof.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20080621014636.GG7369@leksak.fem-net
Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> writes:
>> > Perhaps I'm not consequent, but I thought that it's not worth it ;-)
>>
>> Doesn't that logic make the other s/!/test_must_fail/ changes
>> also not worth it? What is the reason behind the change?
>
> The s/!/test_must_fail/ is just an "extra" like
> "Hey, you're currently standing, can you bring me some tea?"
Counting the places that were affected, I would not call which one is primary
change and which one is extra. The later half of your patch is all about
test_must_fail isn't it?
I am all for making tests more careful, and I think more use of
test_must_fail makes quite a lot of sense. Please don't do a half-ass job if
you are doing the conversion anyway.
About the commit log message, I tend to agree that your original subject
looked ugly and it would have been nicer to just say "t3404: more strict
tests for git-rebase" or something like that, but probably an empty commit
message body would have been Ok.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-21 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-20 2:45 some small changes for rebase-i Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 2:45 ` [PATCH 1/3] t3404: slight improvements Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 2:45 ` [PATCH 2/3] rebase-i: slight internal improvements Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 2:45 ` [PATCH 3/3] Make rebase--interactive use OPTIONS_SPEC Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 5:48 ` Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 13:15 ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-06-20 18:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] t3404: extra checks and s/! git/test_must_fail git/ Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 18:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] Make rebase--interactive use OPTIONS_SPEC Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 18:48 ` [PATCH 1/2] t3404: extra checks and s/! git/test_must_fail git/ Brandon Casey
2008-06-20 19:00 ` Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 22:18 ` しらいしななこ
2008-06-21 1:46 ` Stephan Beyer
2008-06-21 9:46 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2008-06-21 23:55 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] t3404: stricter tests for git-rebase--interactive Stephan Beyer
2008-06-21 23:55 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] Make rebase--interactive use OPTIONS_SPEC Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 7:16 ` [PATCH 2/3] rebase-i: slight internal improvements Johannes Sixt
2008-06-20 8:01 ` Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 8:17 ` Johannes Sixt
2008-06-20 12:46 ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-06-20 18:45 ` Stephan Beyer
2008-06-20 13:05 ` [PATCH 1/3] t3404: slight improvements Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7v4p7nazof.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=casey@nrlssc.navy.mil \
--cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nanako3@lavabit.com \
--cc=s-beyer@gmx.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).