From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 575E1C282DD for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E10E206F0 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="bgRdOSWP" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729690AbgAHR01 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 12:26:27 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:53373 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729544AbgAHR01 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 12:26:27 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC4536596; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 12:26:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=QhlKRVx89DawIFocNB3MTZxpJ0c=; b=bgRdOS WPPNCnS46noFDzMUu+gVFs/AWyilrCfQwK/0K+fT2GDr7j9TaVhO+VIH0EmfCCvp j+dll9WijmeFXhU9H4p/Os5kX3NrmZeUAucJZKXl+XMJndxOZWjNOCqNMFIvp+CT YBjHUk3Lu+aJkGQ6sHm51IIOeZjR1hC/47L7o= 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=ExBbSC5+nxKYeKxzLzbxAaXy9oY5pZH2 lgGrcRfzwVH0KjakMd3YgSV5cENJDbIfPVjjaJTf7qH8Zqgxwe2ob/YXKvmCahIg LsWyFAjd4sbGISRIwh3RTVXj4O4meV/9QThnx8uolERYbQRRcfNw8iReaiAnar+b haRsdfTeAK4= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664EF36595; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 12:26:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F48636593; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 12:26:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Alexandr Miloslavskiy Cc: Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Nieder , Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] t: rework tests for --pathspec-from-file References: <12861b02-386c-3ae8-cd2f-ffe07c6aabc7@syntevo.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 09:26:24 -0800 In-Reply-To: <12861b02-386c-3ae8-cd2f-ffe07c6aabc7@syntevo.com> (Alexandr Miloslavskiy's message of "Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:32:43 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FF4F2B2C-323B-11EA-BA92-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Alexandr Miloslavskiy writes: > On 07.01.2020 22:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> With the third step the series won't merge cleanly with other topic >> you have in 'next' (t7107 gets somewhat heavy merge conflicts). >> >> I'll queue the first two for now but let's clean them up post 2.25 >> release. > > OK, I will re-submit the remaining patch after 2.25. > > I will implement the next --pathspec-from-file patches as if this > third patch was accepted (that is, without copy&pasted tests). I am not sure if that is a good idea. I'd rather see the planned new changes not to be taken hostage of the third step. Besides, with the third step, your preference is not to test the behaviour of end-user facing commands that would learn the option at all and only test the underlying machinery with test-tool tests, no? If you are not adding tests for the higher-level end-user facing commands as part of these new series, would it make a difference if the codebase has the third step applied (i.e. missing tests for the end-user facing commands that have already learned the option) or not (i.e. the commands that have already learned the option are still tested end-to-end)?