Re: [PATCH v4] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 30, 2017, 15:35 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701301627260.3469@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4m0kz65d.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi Junio,

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > This patch automates the process of determining which tests failed
> > previously and re-running them.
> > ...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> 
> I stored both versions in files and compared them, and it seems the
> single word change in the proposed commit log message is the only
> difference.  I would have written "Automate the process...", though.

Yes, we have different styles. Thanks for letting my commit keep my commit message this time ;-)

> If you are resending, touching up to cover all points raised by a
> reviewer and doing nothing else, having "Reviewed-by: Jeff King
> <peff@peff.net>" would have been nicer.

TBH I am not at all sure that I know when to add those footers and when not. After having been asked to remove such a footer, I decided to *not* include them by default.

Having gray zones about the footers strikes me as similar to having gray zones in the coding style guidelines: it sure gives the contributors more freedom, but it also creates uncertainty and as a consequence takes up a lot of reviewing space and time (hence taking away space and time from reviewing the code for bugs).

In other words: while I appreciate the idea of giving contributors such as myself a lot of leeway, I would love even more to be able to automate away tedious and boring tasks (such as adding Tested-by: or Reviewed-by: footers, or for that matter, addressing code style issues before any reviewer has to shed bikes so that they can focus on the parts of the review that no machine can do for them).

Ciao, Johannes