git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>,
	jrnieder@gmail.com, ronniesahlberg@gmail.com,
	git@vger.kernel.org, Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] branch -d: test if we can delete broken refs
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:43:24 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqbnntreer.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <547593FF.6040507@alum.mit.edu> (Michael Haggerty's message of "Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:49:03 +0100")

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> ... On the other hand, this is kind of an "aspirational test"; I don't
> know that the tested functionality has ever worked or that anybody has
> ever claimed that it works. So my feeling is that the addition of the
> test would feel more natural in the patch series that implements the new
> feature. But I don't feel strongly about it.

I share your feeling.  

In the "aspiration followed by realization" pattern, the realization
commit shows a change in t/ hierarchy that turns test_expect_failure
into test_expect_success and it is likely that what is being tested
will fall outside the context.  Unless the test title is phrased
very well, it would not be obvious from the patch text to the t/
hierarchy alone what behaviour is being corrected when looking at
the realization commit.

If aspiration and realization are in a same series, that would not
be a problem, but it is if the commits that add "aspirational test"
and "realization" are too far apart.

If it is pretty clear to everybody that another topic to realize the
aspiration will be coming in a not so distant future, I think it is
fine, though.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-26 18:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-25 22:56 [PATCH] t1402: check to delete broken refs Stefan Beller
2014-11-26  0:35 ` Jonathan Nieder
2014-11-26  0:42   ` Stefan Beller
2014-11-26  0:59     ` [PATCHv2] branch -d: test if we can " Stefan Beller
2014-11-26  8:49       ` Michael Haggerty
2014-11-26 18:43         ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-11-26  5:05 ` [PATCH] t1402: check to " Torsten Bögershausen
2014-11-26 18:37   ` [PATCHv3] branch -d: test if we can " Stefan Beller

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=xmqqbnntreer.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
    --cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
    --cc=ronniesahlberg@gmail.com \
    --cc=sahlberg@google.com \
    --cc=sbeller@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).