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=-5.5 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 0D3F1207EC for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 20:59:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752072AbcJCU7A (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:59:00 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:58826 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751500AbcJCU67 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:58:59 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066FB43DDF; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:58:58 -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=uuuf8gFBLR5uVWznY2BRJH/gbJA=; b=js5Wkw rMv18Hck5T5XW0L99ofoRUM0mVu1Uzk7MDAqzYv4CpOsphr0WtFRNphMwdxVFp6v EuP+T9akV+FhW8TcrsMR2XvouoMNTgkk1jBgNpykEHqutQ6bhSKH8wsCruY0ipxt 0uMCLrV46Fo/xsraIJuLyfHOrHRGOZ348RZU0= 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=oqXz1OmTctrpSjjMByL0AXLn7cJzgsA5 txEvo2UMVNIZLQOaJNCgtMDVelZMe+64HT+HBsJNj5mQAhg+Ebp26Ah3LPKCoecY B0Z66O9GTbhjbENE4qw+uNBMtxOy3Sjfy97V54iOUyb+9PmkYW7KTrN8eGuKGU7A va3P53iikBQ= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F053843DDE; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:58:57 -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 703FC43DDD; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:58:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Santiago Torres Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, sunshine@sunshineco.com, walters@verbum.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add --format to tag verification References: <20160930221806.3398-1-santiago@nyu.edu> <20161003144901.4yainza537g5bujz@LykOS.localdomain> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:58:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20161003144901.4yainza537g5bujz@LykOS.localdomain> (Santiago Torres's message of "Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:49:03 -0400") 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: 33A771A4-89AC-11E6-A7D4-C26412518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Santiago Torres writes: > Hi, Junio. >> I however notice that there is no new tests to protect these two new >> features from future breakages. Perhaps you want to add some in >> [6/5]? > > I'll be working on this. I spent some time looking around for example > tests for format. Are there any that I should pay special attention to? > (I'm looking at t7004 mostly right now). By the way, running t7030 seems to reveal a segfault introduced by this 5-patch series.