Re: [PATCH v2] pull: handle --log=<n>

From: Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@kaarsemaker.net>
Date: May 19, 2015, 21:24 UTC
Message-ID: <1432070690.14498.4.camel@kaarsemaker.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPc5daVze4+8aLGPpZgxDnvKSwvQiaR=kRdwfAHXFYA7HChmMg@mail.gmail.com>

On di, 2015-05-19 at 06:57 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2015-05-18 20:18, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>
> >> So I dunno.  I really wish test_commit didn't create tags and either
> >> left the tagging to the calling script.
> >
> > Or maybe just add a --tag flag to `test_commit` and use that in all cases where the tags were actually needed. Yeah, I think I like that option best.
> 
> Thanks for inferring what I wanted to say but left unsaid due to my
> stupidity and
> lack of proofreading. I meant to follow "either left to the caller"
> with "or with an
> option" ;-)

I took a stab at this, adding a --tag option to test_commit and adding the option to the test_commit calls that need it (or removing tests' reliance on these tags where appropriate, or removing tests' workarounds for dealing with these tags when they don't want them), and the result is 59 files changed, 280 insertions(+), 281 deletions(-)

A test run on master with GIT_TEST_LONG set causes 1138 calls to test_commit on my system, of which 255 now use the --tag option (measured with a really crude hack that INCR's some keys in redis at appropriate points in test_commit).

Is this interesting enough to turn into a proper patch series?

-- 
Dennis Kaarsemaker
www.kaarsemaker.net