Re: tr/pty-all (Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2011, #04; Tue, 13))

> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Will merge to 'next' after taking another look.
>> 
>> The middle commit looks good.  The bottom commit could be improved as
>> discussed at [1], but I guess that can happen in-tree.
>> 
>> However, the top commit ("test test-terminal's sanity") still does not
>> seem right to me.
>
> I wasn't under the impression that we were done with this, either :-)
>
>> It makes the same test run three times.  Probably I should send an
>> alternate patch to get that sanity-check to run once, but I am also
>> not convinced the sanity-check is needed at all --- wouldn't any test
>> that is relying on output from test_terminal act as a sanity check for
>> it already?
>
> It didn't.  Or more precisely, Michael Haggerty ran into the behavior
> of
>
>   git rev-parse ... | while read sha; do git checkout $sha; make test; done
>
> couldn't make any sense of it, and reported it on IRC.  So in some
> sense, it took infrequent circumstances and two developers' time; next
> time around I'd prefer it to be detected automatically.
>
>> As an aside, I also still believe that running "git shortlog" without
>> explicitly passing "HEAD" when testing how it reacts to [core] pager
>> configuration was a bug and a distraction, hence the patch at [2].
>
> Why not.  Some other test should verify how shortlog reacts to the
> tty-ness of stdin, but that's yet another direction.
>
>> I also find Jeff's patch [3] appealing.
>
> Me too, though wonder whether feeding a file full of garbage wouldn't
> be better, so as to trip up commands that try to read only from a
> non-tty stdin.