From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 06:29:16 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree-walk.c: fix overoptimistic inclusion in :(exclude) matching
Message-ID: <CACsJy8DPF8XFCkppnh6iyY3noQG-OMbqq3+LNm1iaotCSr-znw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cQTaG=pTQ_fQp8gv-4+bzJrSGCy8zK_iDeJsFNeX+4Cpg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 7:27 AM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 8:25 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' '
> > > +       git init case8 &&
> > > +       (
> > > +               cd case8 &&
> > > +               echo file >file1 &&
> > > +               echo file >file2 &&
> > > +               git add . &&
> >
> > Won't this loose git-add invocation end up adding all the junk files
> > from earlier tests? One might have expected to see the more restricted
> > invocation:
> >     git add file1 file2 &&
> > to make it easier to reason about the test and not worry about someone
> > later inserting tests above this one which might interfere with it.
>
> Upon reflection, there shouldn't be any junk files since this test is
> creating a new repository and "file1" and "file2" are the only files
> present. Apparently, I wasn't paying close enough attention when I
> made the earlier observation.

Yup.

> Anyhow, the more restricted git-add invocation you used in the re-roll
> is still preferable since it makes the intention obvious. Thanks.

Which is why I did it anyway :)
-- 
Duy