From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
Cc: Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
David Turner <dturner@twitter.com>,
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4 v6] cache-tree: subdirectory tests
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:42:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqsim51a8g.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1405118791.3775.26.camel@stross> (David Turner's message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:46:31 -0700")
David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 08:40 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> In the ideal world, I think whoever tries to compare two cache-trees
>> (i.e. test-dump-cache-tree) should *not* care, because we are merely
>> trying to show what the correct tree object name for the node would
>> be, but this is only for testing, so the best way forward would be
>> to:
>>
>> - Stop using DRY_RUN in test-dump-cache-tree.c;
>>
>> - Stop the code to support DRY_RUN from cache-tree.c (nobody but
>> the test uses it); and
>>
>> - Drop the "-e '#(ref)/d'" from the above.
>>
>> I would think.
>
> Do you mean that I should do this in this patch set, or that it's a good
> idea for the future?
I have no strong preference either way. Removing DRY_RUN may
simplify things in the code that gets used in the real life (as
opposed to the code that is only used during the tests), so I do not
mind it if it was done before the series as a preparation step.
> Also, if we don't use DRY_RUN, won't test-dump-cache-tree add trees to
> the actual ODB, which would be odd for a test program?
I do not see it as odd at all; after all, nobody in the real-life
uses dry-run and as you can see its use is broken, or at least is
inconsistent with the rest of the system.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-13 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-11 0:31 [PATCH 1/4 v6] cache-tree: Create/update cache-tree on checkout David Turner
2014-07-11 0:31 ` [PATCH 2/4 v6] test-dump-cache-tree: invalid trees are not errors David Turner
2014-07-11 0:31 ` [PATCH 3/4 v6] cache-tree: subdirectory tests David Turner
2014-07-11 6:03 ` Eric Sunshine
2014-07-11 15:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-11 15:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-11 22:46 ` David Turner
2014-07-13 16:42 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-07-11 22:46 ` David Turner
2014-07-11 0:31 ` [PATCH 4/4 v6] cache-tree: Write updated cache-tree after commit David Turner
2014-07-11 15:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-11 23:37 ` David Turner
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=xmqqsim51a8g.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=dturner@twitter.com \
--cc=dturner@twopensource.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.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).