From: Matthieu Moy Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 06:01:30 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] t9001: non order-sensitive file comparison Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3090c61c-533b-7119-f5e4-7d99e62f6da4@grenoble-inp.org> 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. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/