From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE2535477A for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:12:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720710731; cv=none; b=qKIW+TGfmjVWwFnwG7BHYOFDd7TNLp+OusA5ZUIE/503SO8FNP0Qa0Hx+xXnYnU4oUAsoRNmwzsUkboTDSEKH3K6it3uaSWri0LFVy1HH9qqG040nxYd/uX0P60y0L45Uf1Pnv1wSw9xQ1YE+OOL6c1g/OGGmdAqOAaMhZIrFuk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720710731; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+TArri9zBCGjnA51bKS+ZDPwDfeMambtazpQRcWvtlE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Idk0XrHFmcIkIjtbFaKqDfAKSd+v7aHUy6tMoOtPps4q9meF3qOlceTqC/dn+DbIE+0mIP+WGoW1+i32KdBnn1usDkQLF2Bi2LCX3DPqNDKPBBCmE5PX6dL9M6GM9shmVb8apdmh14frmb7XSKyj0w8HoTP2UCRAqE9IPgsEEMg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=BvtQ+5wp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="BvtQ+5wp" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC6C2798B; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:12:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=+TArri9zBCGj nA51bKS+ZDPwDfeMambtazpQRcWvtlE=; b=BvtQ+5wpymjR9LB/Ih4br6y2fH6u f83quFgKtkSOmZ1rrKIBx7Rva3Tq2nOeMYzJB9bgPd7BlsgWFE76ryGEG+SM8si9 2qYIE+VUyezLrKQYcSDq8wmr64yyQRG3DePKvzR2xTZbXfAnstSccMLBCHYA9btT evi89jC8l3IbW90= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34682798A; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:12:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.219.236]) (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 1EA8F27988; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:12:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: Git List , =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe , Phillip Wood , Josh Steadmon Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] unit-tests: add and use TEST_RUN to simplify tests In-Reply-To: <38c962cd-2691-4664-b262-6eb78b8a61b5@gmail.com> (Phillip Wood's message of "Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:05:34 +0100") References: <85b6b8a9-ee5f-42ab-bcbc-49976b30ef33@web.de> <38c962cd-2691-4664-b262-6eb78b8a61b5@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:12:06 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F0A0CFA4-3F97-11EF-BD28-5B6DE52EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Phillip Wood writes: > On 10/07/2024 23:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Ren=C3=A9 Scharfe writes: >> >> So, looking back the discussion list on >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/85b6b8a9-ee5f-42ab-bcbc-49976b30ef33@we= b.de/ >> any loose ends still need to be addressed? I didn't spot any >> myself, so I am willing to merge it to 'next' soonish, but please >> stop me if there were something I missed. > > I thought Ren=C3=A9 was planning a re-roll to avoid using xstrfmt() in > Patch 2 c.f <97390954-49bc-48c4-bab1-95be10717aca@web.de>. Also I'm > not sure we've reached a conclusion on whether to include the "if" in > the macro or require the user to write "if(TEST_RUN(...))". My > impression is that there is a consensus building around having the > macro include the "if" but we haven't decided what to call it > c.f. <62d221cc-532a-4a6d-8e96-b5a246ddeb1b@web.de> > > Best Wishes Thanks. Very much appreciated.