Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] t9001: non order-sensitive file comparison
On 06/09/2016 08:01 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Show 32 quoted lines
> Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@grenoble-inp.org> writes:
>
>> On 06/08/2016 06:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@grenoble-inp.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Actually we had issues when trying to refactor send-email's email
>>>> parsing loop [1]. Email addresses in output file `commandeline1` in
>>>> tests weren't sorted the same way as the reference file it was
>>>> compared to. E.g.:
>>>>
>>>> !nobody@example.com!
>>>> !author@example.com!
>>>> !one@example.com!
>>>> !two@example.com!
>>>
>>> And the reason why these addresses that are collected from the same
>>> input (i.e. command line, existing e-mail fields, footers, etc.) are
>>> shown in different order in your implementation is...?
>>
>> It's not shown in different order in our implementation, it's just a
>> leftover of my refactor attempt [1].
>
> I think the refactoring makes sense, but having this patch as PATCH 1/6
> in a series about --in-reply-to confuses reviewers: they would expect
> this patch to be useful to the others in the series.
>
> If you have "reply to a message in a file" ready without the
> refactoring, and a mostly ready refactoring, then I think it makes sense
> to have two patch series, the first being only "reply to a message in a
> file". If the refactoring itself is not ready, you may send a separate
> series "tests clean up" and explain on the cover-letter that it's, well,
> only a test clean up.
I think I will split the patch series into 3 smaller series:
- "quote-email" feature
- tests clean up
- send-email code cleanup (including send-email's output)