From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:55:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Allow "git shortlog" to group by committer information
Message-ID: <CA+P7+xrMgzFcuqwBg6z2_ZPgAVKwLX2eyK6D4C0v-c3zAMFqUg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161221032221.s7jmgnfrr6tyuyuk@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:35:36AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> -- >8 --
>> Subject: SQUASH???
>>
>> Make sure the test does not depend on the result of the previous
>> tests; with MINGW prerequisite satisfied, a "reset to original and
>> rebuild" in an earlier test was skipped, resulting in different
>> history being tested with this and the next tests.
>
> Yeah, this looks good, and obviously correct.
>
> I do wonder if in general it should be the responsibility of skippable
> tests to make sure we end up with the same state whether they are run or
> not. That might manage the complexity more. But I certainly don't mind
> tests being defensive like you have here.
>
> -Peff

That seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure how you would implement
it in practice? Would we just "rely" on a skipable test having a "do
this if we skip, instead" block? That would be easier to spot but I
think still relies on the skip-able tests being careful?

Thanks,
Jake