Re: [GSoC][PATCH] t/t5000-tar-tree: add helper function

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Feb 5, 2023, 17:59 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cT-3GuGg91WDeMC__iQ7db0-1-q7-4z5jBFb19GC3E9mQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPRQfCZUwaE4mko46n0wQbkKjpg4Tqxbg6eKLm9rFrBRj6sVLg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 10:17 AM Kostya Farber <kostya.farber@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:19 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 6:09 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > > So, t5000 seems to be one of those relatively rare cases in which the
> > > raw "test" command is more correct than the higher-level helper
> > > functions.
> >
> > By the way, although the change made by this patch is probably
> > undesirable, if you would like to try a different submission, there is
> > a bit of modernization that could be applied to t5000. [...]
>
> I would be happy to help and submit another patch for this test based
> on your observations above. Thanks for the suggestion. I am trying to
> get used to the development workflow of emailing patches and generally
> getting familiar with the code base and this seems like a small but
> important step in the right direction.

The goal of the microproject isn't so much to get a change accepted into the project, but rather to get experience with the workflow and review process. Responding to reviewer comments, as you did, is part of that process, so you're doing fine.