Re: [PATCH v12 5/5] commit: add a commit.verbose config variable

> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>> The fact that the 32 new tests are nearly identical suggests strongly
>> that the testing should instead either be table-driven or be done via
>> for-loops to systematically cover all cases. Not only would either of
>> these approaches be easier to digest, but they would make it easy to
>> tell at a glance if any cases were missing. See [2] for an example of
>> how the tests can be table-driven, and see the bottom of [3] for an
>> example of using for-loops to test systematically (though you'd need
>> to use nested for-loops rather than just the one in the example).
>>
>> I'm leaning toward systematic testing via nested for-loops as the more
>> suitable of the two approach for this particular application.
>

> By the way, while this would be a nice change, it doesn't necessarily
> have to be part of this series, and could be done as a follow-up by
> you or someone else.
>
> (The other changes suggested in the same review, however, ought to be
> fixed in this series; in particular, simplifying the "setup" test and
> making the first test after "setup" consistent with the remaining
> tests.)