From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:08:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Tests file for git-remote-mediawiki
Message-ID: <vpqy5nyyxuh.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CA+hdvHhPf-p0N36fXH6Spd-svQ2i1sU7Wc9g7T17Gh8dnA2T6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Simon Perrat <simon.perrat@ensimag.imag.fr> writes:

> 2012/6/8 Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
>>
>> "Simon.Cathebras" <Simon.Cathebras@ensimag.imag.fr> writes:
>> > Do you mean that we should split the third patch into two patches ?
>> > For instance::
>> >     Patch 3/4: tests for git pull
>> >     Patch 4/4: tests for git push
>>
>> Yes, except the title should mention git-remote-mediawiki, of course.
>>
>
> Should we split our test file in two then ? Currently they're all in t9361.

The patch I was commenting does

 t/t9360-git-mediawiki.sh | 265 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 t/t9361-git-mediawiki.sh | 213 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(BTW, you can find a better naming for the files, if one tests clone,
then clone should appear in the title, same for push/pull).

There's nothing wrong with touching several files in the same commit,
but when your commit messages looks like

- first file: does this
- second file: does that

and there's no dependencies, it's usually better to split the commit.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/