From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: tr/pty-all (Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2011, #04; Tue, 13)) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:42:22 -0800 Message-ID: <7vpqfrqcch.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vobvcrlve.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20111214070916.GA14954@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> <201112141717.15021.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jonathan Nieder , , Jeff King , =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy , Michael Haggerty To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 14 18:42:34 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rasqf-0005ly-UG for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:42:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757817Ab1LNRma (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:42:30 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:33251 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757808Ab1LNRm0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:42:26 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CB3421E; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:42:25 -0500 (EST) 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=ZernkNuJw1rg+hc3pqWjnFHiuck=; b=j2dvlo DYjJg4lK5yGwmqpG23aYPzTCPVZSs+g1Keub1KDz9OQqTeHzUIaG7hC70PQyvNzW 9HBks23/au4ru/2l8X++Bxim79cZWy502rj/UzDtc4i43cXE1Wi5uk7xAh7WL16w Y6RgGfV3gh1vAgMxXEx7gp2KEevIfVTEJrIbk= 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=rRLz2+c1Fek0s/dEbbgCTE6RcTF8PjH3 1gsbMD1fVdSE9m8fBYnz/Fq/vzeI420V+VoU9a7X+8aOiZKc/Rl5nEzUVzw2yiFm WYOtUF5mAz67GG3O3L0FYvGhZcClgIuyqJzq8yWrZIMUum04ZYraz5FclTfY0531 JIsQtpFmMeI= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3FB421D; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:42:25 -0500 (EST) 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 A66E2421B; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:42:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <201112141717.15021.trast@student.ethz.ch> (Thomas Rast's message of "Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:17:14 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FB9B43EC-267A-11E1-AD0C-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: Thomas Rast writes: > Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > Will merge to 'next' after taking another look. >> >> The middle commit looks good. The bottom commit could be improved as >> discussed at [1], but I guess that can happen in-tree. >> >> However, the top commit ("test test-terminal's sanity") still does not >> seem right to me. > > I wasn't under the impression that we were done with this, either :-) > >> It makes the same test run three times. Probably I should send an >> alternate patch to get that sanity-check to run once, but I am also >> not convinced the sanity-check is needed at all --- wouldn't any test >> that is relying on output from test_terminal act as a sanity check for >> it already? > > It didn't. Or more precisely, Michael Haggerty ran into the behavior > of > > git rev-parse ... | while read sha; do git checkout $sha; make test; done > > couldn't make any sense of it, and reported it on IRC. So in some > sense, it took infrequent circumstances and two developers' time; next > time around I'd prefer it to be detected automatically. > >> As an aside, I also still believe that running "git shortlog" without >> explicitly passing "HEAD" when testing how it reacts to [core] pager >> configuration was a bug and a distraction, hence the patch at [2]. > > Why not. Some other test should verify how shortlog reacts to the > tty-ness of stdin, but that's yet another direction. > >> I also find Jeff's patch [3] appealing. > > Me too, though wonder whether feeding a file full of garbage wouldn't > be better, so as to trip up commands that try to read only from a > non-tty stdin. Well, I guess I was too quick to pull the trigger after sending the "What's cooking" out. Sorry about that. On the other hand, I think these require relatively low impact changes that can be handled in-tree and the downsides of the series like running prerequisite tests more than once are not serious show stoppers, so it isn't a disaster ;-) Thanks both for noticing and commenting. Very much appreciated.