From: "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org>
To: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "GitList" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] Test the Git version string
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:25:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <99AE5E981E2547B6A71A4D77B17167B9@PhilipOakley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7vli8k4lnj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org
From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:39 AM
> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>>> If the "parsing" is done for white/blacklist purposes, is there a
>>> need to straight-jacket the verison string format like this series?
>>
>> The purpose is to document what we felt we could guarantee, and that
>> which was open to variation, so that those, like the Git-Gui, can
>> code
>> in a sensible check for the version. Two digits (X.Y) should pass the
>> existing Git Gui check.
>>
>> I'll drop the length limit, and keep to an X.Y check
>>
>> Is the end of t0000-basic.sh a sensible place for the check?
>
> Sorry, but I still do not understand what you are trying to achieve.
>
> What kind of benefit are you envisioning out of this?
The purpose of tests is to detect mistakes and spot regressions.
A change to the 'git version X.Y.z' string would be a regression, as I
spotted earlier, as it conflicts with expectations of standard
programmes such as git-gui.
>For a future
> version, people would not know what incompatibilities it would
> introduce, so
>
> case "$(git version)" in
> "git verison"[2-9].*)
> echo unsupported version
> exit 1
> ;;
> esac
>
> is a nonsense check.
>
> For all released versions, people know how they looked like
> and we
> do not have anything further to specify. Git 1.5.0 will forever
> identify itself as:
>
> $ git version
> git version 1.5.0
>
> Worse yet, for an untagged version, you may get something like
>
> git version 1.8.2.1-515-g78d2372
However, if it passes the test [all the tests], one expects it will be
reasonably (almost completely) compatibility with external expectations,
such as those of git gui.
The questions I'm posing is from the other direction - use of tests for
quality control.
>
> and it may or may not behave the same way as 1.8.2.1 depending on
> what trait you are interested in.
That will depend on the tests if [deliberately?] failed.
I'll tidy up the patches and commit meesage and see how it looks then.
Philip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-16 7:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-14 14:27 [RFC/PATCH 0/2] Test the Git version string Philip Oakley
2013-04-14 14:27 ` [RFC/PATCH 1/2] test git " Philip Oakley
2013-04-14 14:27 ` [RFC/PATCH 2/2] Doc: State the exact " Philip Oakley
2013-04-14 19:22 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/2] Test the Git " Junio C Hamano
2013-04-14 21:26 ` Philip Oakley
2013-04-15 1:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-16 7:25 ` Philip Oakley [this message]
2013-04-16 18:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-16 18:24 ` David Aguilar
2013-04-16 19:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-16 21:22 ` Philip Oakley
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=99AE5E981E2547B6A71A4D77B17167B9@PhilipOakley \
--to=philipoakley@iee.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/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