Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2009, #02; Thu, 05)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 5, 2009, 11:00 UTC
Message-ID: <20090305110051.GA17921@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vbpsg2sgx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 02:07:26AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> * mh/cvsimport-tests (Mon Feb 23 06:08:14 2009 +0100) 5 commits
>  - Add a test of "git cvsimport"'s handling of tags and branches
>  - Add some tests of git-cvsimport's handling of vendor branches
>  - Test contents of entire cvsimported "master" tree contents
>  - Use CVS's -f option if available (ignore user's ~/.cvsrc file)
>  - Start a library for cvsimport-related tests
> 
> Tests without fixes are of dubious value.  Any takers?

At the very least, I think the first 3 are nice infrastructure cleanups that will help future tests for cvsimport. So it makes sense to me to apply them to help future testers (otherwise, they would have to know that these patches existed and dig them out of the list).

The final two introduce the new tests. They look fine as far as fitting into the test infrastructure, but I have to admit that I haven't actually looked closely at _what_ they are testing. I assumed since they are adapted from Michael's cvs2svn tests that they are showing real problems that he had faced there. If they are meant to show failings of cvsps-based conversion (which is my understanding from Michael's other messages), then I'm not even sure they _are_ fixable without a total rewrite.

So I don't know whether it makes sense to apply them if we never plan on fixing them. Michael said his goal was to document problems with cvsps-based importing, and I think he has done that in a way that will help anyone who wants to try fixing. We can help people out a little more by carrying the tests in the tree (versus making them pull them from the list); the downside is that it may take the test suite a little longer to run. I don't know how much we care; it might not matter for 2 tests, but I certainly wouldn't want to 30 minutes of testing for something that isn't fixable (and CVS tests tend to be terribly slow).

-Peff