From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 22:03:19 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] subdirectory tests: code cleanup, uncomment test
Message-ID: <20150518220318.GE5586@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZ9h=Oev_mymFBRNyAGokAe8-vWh_D12VZYHTUv20Djvg@mail.gmail.com>

Stefan Beller wrote:

> I am not happy with (historic) either, maybe "(explicit GIT_DIR)"
> is describing the test better without giving the reader the thoughts
> as you raised here?

The general principle I use is to try to briefly describe what
hypothesis the code is trying to test, so that if it fails someone knows
what that means.

In this case, I could do

	test_expect_success 'no file/rev ambiguity with explicit GIT_DIR=.' '

[...]
>>>               cd foo.git &&
>>> +             # older Git needed help by exporting GIT_DIR=.
>>> +             # to realize that it is inside a bare repository.
>>> +             # We keep this test around for regression testing.
>>>               GIT_DIR=. git show -s HEAD

I don't think this comment is needed, since it doesn't make it clearer
what the test is about.

Thanks,
Jonathan