From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jon Simons <jon@jonsimons.org>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org,
Kristoffer Haugsbakk <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>,
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] SubmittingPatches: avoid add-failing-test-then-fix anti-pattern
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 07:34:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq4ierasxy.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261012030029.12200-1-jon@jonsimons.org> (Jon Simons's message of "Sun, 11 Oct 2026 23:00:29 -0400")
Jon Simons <jon@jonsimons.org> writes:
> +A bugfix patch should include tests in test_expect_success() blocks that
> +demonstrate the breakage when the code change that implements the fix is
> +omitted. Submit tests as `test_expect_success` in the same commit as
> +your code change that fixes the bug. A separate commit that only changes
> +`test_expect_failure` to `test_expect_success` can leave the behavior
> +being tested out of the diff context, making the fix harder to review.
> +Reviewers who want to verify that your test reproduces the bug can
> +temporarily undo the code changes while keeping the test.
> +
> Pushing to a fork of https://github.com/git/git will use their CI
> integration to test your changes on Linux, Mac and Windows. See the
> <<GHCI,GitHub CI>> section for details.
Doesn't the second sentence "Submit tests ..." merely repeat what
the first sentence already says without adding much value? After
re-reading them three times, I think "the same commit" is the only
new point. I would condense the first two sentences down to
A bugfix patch should add, in the same commit, code change and
test_expect_success() blocks that demonstrate the breakage when
the fix is omitted.
or something, if I were writing this from scratch.
By the way, I consider that the SubmittingPatches document is
primarily about giving readers a set of rules they should follow,
and not about teaching the reasoning behind a rule to such a deep
level, unless the rule requires judgment on when or when not to
apply it. We agreed we do not need "unless there is a strong reason
not to", which means there is no judgment needed, so I was not
expecting to see the latter half of the paragraph.
Having said all that, i will queue this version as-is because we are
quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns. Thanks.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-12 14:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-11 15:32 [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: avoid add-failing-test-then-fix anti-pattern Jon Simons
2026-10-11 16:21 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-11 23:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-12 1:46 ` Jon Simons
2026-10-12 3:00 ` [PATCH v2] " Jon Simons
2026-10-12 14:34 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
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=xmqq4ierasxy.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jon@jonsimons.org \
--cc=kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
/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