From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (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 5FA0E155351 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 23:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718753882; cv=none; b=iEmYpB1FiTE7y1migEpOIKlvG6gmr3GTURYxjYvH19jKqmkHCHLz4j0bVfTjMYkI1b3MWL71Kq/ogwZ3k7OG46MjTPw6B2cisMGo/W60PyWVMxTfzO8EqkGoPZfQLrvGACQIXjQcgCKcvDfR+4HGWoX/hFc88vPt2+X5K94sfSs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718753882; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jViGV+Maw+VOx7hv/9c7zFCe6Vq+cETGp9aLoeHYgbw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HLZVhBEo9MSpOMLbhtusxTU+BsWDHlBwEeJOigJlsc3qwJnLZxtCNlLR1TaOSMRgzr57njl2u+mRdgf5ONlYjQjepYp9QUj60yMvNMszfuZwul9dLxNlQwNB4Ft5tqEcO75tUz12zSkUiMwfnU4G0qJSFdePMqYhPW/X+rPZ4+I= 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=KAYYinXf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 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="KAYYinXf" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BDE2C5C8; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:37:54 -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; s=sasl; bh=jViGV+Maw+VOx7hv/9c7zFCe6Vq+cETGp9aLoe HYgbw=; b=KAYYinXfkWzpq/sdMHUEWyq3s1KeupRktVMhsMCsx6kP8rT2W7ZNeF GGuIazP+RSqoA/8Q5QVGNtBY/POJwYxuhuZtL1O15xfQpb4SLgHbrOoMc+LRqZx+ z4Lu5YiX1CfM6b4pqDPDUrWmDzfzLaVfGL2uHsXObWxj+K4b7FCpw= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6EC2C5C7; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:37:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.204.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C236B2C5C6; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:37:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Wong Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] t1006: ensure cat-file info isn't buffered by default In-Reply-To: <20240618213041.M462972@dcvr> (Eric Wong's message of "Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:30:41 +0000") References: <20240617104326.3522535-1-e@80x24.org> <20240617104326.3522535-3-e@80x24.org> <20240618213041.M462972@dcvr> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:37:48 -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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C6C4126E-2DCB-11EF-87D8-DFF1FEA446E2-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Eric Wong writes: >> Yes, using Perl is a good substitute for writing it in C in this >> case. I however question the choice to use t9700/test.pl here, >> which is clearly stated that its purpose is to "test perl interface >> which is Git.pm", and added tests are not testing anything in Git.pm >> at all. >> >> Using t9700/test.pl only because it happens to use "perl -MTest::More" >> sounds a bit eh, suboptimal. > > *shrug* I figure Test::More is common enough since it's part of > the Perl standard library; but I consider Perl a better scripting > language than sh by far and wish our whole test suite were Perl :> Oh, I think we (actually the author of t9700) considers it common enough that we have PERL_TEST_MORE prerequisite to allow us to write tests, assuming that it is available, and let us easily skip where it is not available. So I do not think I mind the dependency on Test::More at all. Moving the tests to t1006 and rewriting the tests not to use Test::More are two separate and unrelated things, and if you are more comfortable with Test::More (and more importantly if it is natural to write Perl based tests using Test::More), it is not necessary to switch away from it.