From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D39C2070C for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755194AbcGFOv0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:51:26 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50866 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754507AbcGFOvZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:51:25 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A025629425; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:51:23 -0400 (EDT) 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=nHoarUAfgppdpVSYTXAkZG0cmsA=; b=RY5me/ fVhICJGydAenPUxBPUc+Ea18NJTcQAfGbBICnVpuq7mlWdfV122Q/M/C/hdAh8Br 9xE1RKY1nwwhPQhLhYODm846U2AGSFbG+S4odkwNUtl28e3kqYl3EbXmSLypH3JE vlUNmj/gCw6sHMHuarhAKPUvAT6Xy8Jbdj/jI= 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=Dxh8WxL+mOvA60EhXNOrAVTf12jzO+3U s2LJ6jfvuho8or0bynwwV5m5LgO5ZYVXiO6K6Dh9BDnY9SoPgNMQ6U3YB49O/p6Z Ccqv9dDeeRideIbJajDFTrfDc4WN7jFV7Djo/ohZQGzGcFNj+1HxAZZ2OkeYcFKn WVv4FjanQDk= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F9E29424; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25DD629423; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:51:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option References: <0df34c45db5b1500e55262c8948c9140e7ad6cb8.1467210629.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 07:51:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sat, 2 Jul 2016 09:38:46 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1B760D70-4389-11E6-97C3-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > Of course I agree that it would be very nice to have a test at a later > stage that does exercise GPG if it is available. But would it really be so > terrible to have a (simpler, not as complete) test that is exercised > *also* when GPG is *not* available? What I would expect is "In the ideal world, we may want both, and in an imperfect world in which we can have only one, we'd rather have the 'even though we can run it only when GPG is available, we make sure that we drive GPG correctly' one, dropping the other.", simply because the end result matters more, not how the instruction to the end user is phrased. Sure, in even less perfect world, having a superficial test might be better than nothing, but reminding ourselves to aim high (and make sure we document the decision when we punt) is an important part of the purpose of the review process, so...