From: Samuel GROOT Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:21:56 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] t9001: non order-sensitive file comparison Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 06/09/2016 08:01 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Samuel GROOT writes: > >> On 06/08/2016 06:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Samuel GROOT 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)