From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Isolate If-Modified-Since handling in gitweb Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:09:24 -0700 Message-ID: <7viphx1zt7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20120321140429.GA28721@odin.tremily.us> <7vmx7921yz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120321195520.GB32535@odin.tremily.us> <201203212104.23192.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "W. Trevor King" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 21 21:09:40 2012 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 1SARqh-0008SL-Q6 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:09:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758144Ab2CUUJ2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:09:28 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:47852 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756946Ab2CUUJ1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:09:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20F36AD3; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:09:26 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=td9dbVRcPSBveFRi8rQzMqec7Jw=; b=KDOn2U vj0SizP76DFjAwORuVuvoFDmllb9Fr2PBiXg9bjUCJ4BCp+PrRKTaPkvwUBCfje4 vdwbZF4DPoMhCbNCdaQKzlDB73EwFkK6SRAVjS3rBN4ml7FyeNN8/7ObRtCIDoQA J71/iFNj+HFswzIAVi4u9fRKlw3Z0liICP2FQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=uQdxYIEKxE63S6bxrmSmv2d+T5roMv6g z72v7eNQhF7Xb18jwUgD5VnZwJlYWK71OTr49yNIh261vlR4WC3bD/OWNfNI1nmt g6Jcmwj6QlnSdYvk6DGakOBy4/dwrQgqTNwGTCjKEQQlPDIKBB7gY8vJYehbBvMG sLO+yMqlByg= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B0A6AD2; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:09:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30B0B6AD0; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:09:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <201203212104.23192.jnareb@gmail.com> (Jakub Narebski's message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:04:22 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C21F4802-7391-11E1-A7CE-9DB42E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski writes: >> 1: tests for i-m-s and git_feed >> 2: refactor i-m-s handling > > Those two can be in single commit. Tests added need only test i-m-s > using git_feed ('atom' or 'rss' action), as it is the only user, > and you touch only i-m-s handling. Correct. >> 3: tests for i-m-s and git_snapshot (which fail until 4) >> 4: add i-m-s to git_snapshot > > We usually put tests together with feature. Tests before feature means > that you would need to mark them as test_expect_failure, as they would > not pass before feature is added, isn't it? Correct. In a more elaborate series, you would first add a lot of tests to nail the behaviour of the existing code down, then refactor or reimplement them in a different way, add tests that expect failure until the next phase, and then add features and turn expect_failure in tests to expect_success. But I do not htink this single patch deserves that complexity. Does it even have to split into three?