From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Cc: avarab@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [WIP 0/8] Trying to revive GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:18:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqfttrm18w.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190117183727.260298-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:37:27 -0800")
Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
>> I'm happy to have you pick that up as you've done here, especially since
>> you're actually working on v2 and I'm not, so you can more easily know
>> what it conflicts with etc. I just wanted to have it in one way or
>> another, i.e. be able to deploy v2 and assert that "next + custom
>> patches" doesn't break something for v2.
>>
>> I think [CC: Junio] that we shouldn't be concerned about an addition of
>> GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION patches in any form breaking the test suite
>> under GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION=2, and just be concerned about the
>> default GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION= case. I.e. if we have v2 patches
>> in-flight that break things no big deal, we can always circle back and
>> fix those things or annotate the tests.
>
> That sounds good to me. My main concern is that this will end up being
> dead code (if we have too many tests that fail with
> GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION=2 and no one bothers with it anymore), but I
> don't think that will happen - in this patch set, I have eliminated a
> lot of false failures and strove to give reasons for the
> GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION= annotations, and I think there's interest
> (well, at least from me) in investigating the remaining apparent bugs.
Yup, sounds good to me, too.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-17 21:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-16 22:42 [WIP 0/8] Trying to revive GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION Jonathan Tan
2019-01-16 22:42 ` [WIP 1/8] tests: define GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION Jonathan Tan
2019-01-16 22:42 ` [WIP 2/8] tests: always test fetch of unreachable with v0 Jonathan Tan
2019-01-16 22:42 ` [WIP 3/8] t5503: fix overspecification of trace expectation Jonathan Tan
2019-01-16 22:42 ` [WIP 4/8] t5512: compensate for v0 only sending HEAD symrefs Jonathan Tan
2019-01-16 22:42 ` [WIP 5/8] t5700: only run with protocol version 1 Jonathan Tan
2019-01-16 22:42 ` [WIP 6/8] tests: fix protocol version for overspecifications Jonathan Tan
2019-01-16 22:42 ` [WIP 7/8] t5552: compensate for v2 filtering ref adv Jonathan Tan
2019-01-16 22:42 ` [WIP 8/8] remote-curl: in v2, fill credentials if needed Jonathan Tan
2019-01-17 9:31 ` [WIP 0/8] Trying to revive GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-01-17 18:37 ` Jonathan Tan
2019-01-17 21:18 ` 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=xmqqfttrm18w.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jonathantanmy@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).