Re: [PATCH] Re-re-re-fix common tail optimization

From: Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>
Date: Dec 17, 2007, 08:42 UTC
Message-ID: <EBD73F46-810F-4605-972C-54EED0EF9A63@wincent.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071216222919.GA2260@coredump.intra.peff.net>

El 16/12/2007, a las 23:29, Jeff King escribió:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:23:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I amended it without adding another "re-" to the title ;-)  The
>> result has been already pushed out.
>
> OK. Too late, but it has my ack. ;)
>
>>> Aren't we using "git diff" for the second diff there nowadays?
>>
>> Some people seem to think that is a good idea, but I generally do not
>> like using "git diff" between expect and actual (both untracked)  
>> inside
>> tests.  The last "diff" is about validating what git does and using  
>> "git
>> diff" there would make the test meaningless when "git diff" itself is
>> broken.
>
> I think that is a valid concern. But ISTR that were some issues with
> using GNU diff. Commit 5bd74506 mentions getting rid of the dependency
> in all existing tests, but gives no reason.

I'd say it's safe and sensible to use "git diff" in all tests *except* for tests of "git diff" itself.

Wincent