Re: [PATCH 00/15] Use test_config
- From
Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com>
- Date
- Mar 27, 2013, 16:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ec6c6b2101cf035b5dea7f7110ddf706@meuh.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vmwtoq3xb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Hi,
Le 27.03.2013 16:05, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
Show 7 quoted lines
> Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com> writes: > >> Tested against master, 7b592fadf1e23b10b913e0771b9f711770597266 > > Is this because I suggested you to clean things up while you were > touching in a vicinity of something that could use this clean-up? >
Yes, grep'ing shows others usage of the test_config pattern. I patched them all.
Show 6 quoted lines
> If so, please first clean _that_ script in a patch, and then add the > change you wanted to do in another patch, as a single two-patch > series, without touching anything else that is not related to that > change. The patch to t7600 is the one that needs to become two > patches, one to clean up and the other to add tests for --no-ff. >
Actually the initial patch adding test for --no-ff-only is not part of this series.
Patch against t7600 has a special note about a strange behavor found while testing test_config "anyware", that's why there's somes line added to the test and a note in the commit message.
I was waiting for your opinion on this change in the test, but more, on the difference of behavior exhibited in the patched test "merge log message":
git merge --no-log git show -s --pretty=format:%b HEAD
vs
git merge --no-ff --no-log git show -s --pretty=format:%b HEAD
First produce an empty file, while the second produce an empty line.
This was revealed by changing test "merge c0 with c1 (ff overrides no-ff) - git config branch.master.mergeoptions "--no-ff" && - test_config branch.master.mergeoptions "--no-ff" &&
I could split this patch in a first patch that add the behavor test to "merge log message" test, than I could rebase the patch series against. And later, submit my proposition for new tests in t7600 regarding --no-ff-only and tags.
Show 7 quoted lines
> The rest, as a separate "only cleaning up, doing nothing else" > series, are fine as a follow-up, but please make sure that they do > not touch anything in-flight (one easy way to check is to see "git > diff --name-only maint pu -- t/"). I would prefer to see "clean-up > only" changes that introduce unnecessary conflicts with other real > features and fixes held off until the dust settles. >
It's a good advice that fit perfectly in Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
Regards.
-- Yann Droneaud OPTEYA