From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA459C433E0 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:30:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD2A22B43 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:30:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727026AbgLUTaY (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:30:24 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:61486 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727008AbgLUTaU (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:30:20 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF0098DDC; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:29:39 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=wCs0wkK7qTWtlDNXX/9hofEXqSY=; b=WjxOgw wOiHj4vmj4tDv6A4oxgSwdj/ggzLqfJovNj3jlXsanMjyNd4NrEAoTzWzQDpfdo+ PuIJePbHw9xoPkViPvk5S48nvJVFg82CvNhrHYIzJX+97h848xlCtJCWG8edukcd I9K6+SmeiAZUHkQWJxcGKUUYc7/Y4qEIHRJMM= 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=eG58NTcpJyxnmPn9bdbNFj50vpuRc4Bv 168h7nA/bp4g8eE0lJTZmXj/xu1w97KxnGmeXVYza1zOiR5NagrprHe1pYC2616L zFuScNIDMrmwcMydOVRCuTc9X2Wbpr80HYcfhqQO2jm7afWPeVHwQG1LmTZyMT0z iB4kb8rJdWM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367FC98DDB; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:29:39 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9EBF98DD9; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:29:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Altmanninger Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH] diff: suppress --name-only paths where all hunks are ignored References: <20201216231840.3163806-1-aclopte@gmail.com> <20201216231840.3163806-2-aclopte@gmail.com> <20201220223435.tmo5ty5tzwu7et4d@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 11:29:38 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20201220223435.tmo5ty5tzwu7et4d@gmail.com> (Johannes Altmanninger's message of "Sun, 20 Dec 2020 23:34:35 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DDBCFDB0-43C2-11EB-AC7D-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Altmanninger writes: >> +test_expect_success '-w and --exit-code interact sensibly' ' > > Maybe 'exit with 0 when all changes are ignored by -w' though either version > is fine because I think the intention of the test is already obvious. Yeah, 'sensibly' is a zero-bit phrase and the letters are better spent on describing what we deem sensible more clearly. Thanks.