Re: [PATCH v7 04/10] config: make scope_name non-static and rename it

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 11, 2020, 06:10 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq5zgdy7pu.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOjrSZvm-3qVw4880MeDVk59ToCwp9vMC1zFp-SYaDsFd3Y=8g@mail.gmail.com>

Matt Rogers <mattr94@gmail.com> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

>> How are you reviewing the patches in your own series before sending
>> them out?  This round is better than the previous rounds where we
>> didn't have a matching change to the tests so "make test" may not
>> have passed in the middle of the series, though...
>>
>
> I went through each patch individually using rebase -i and built/tested it.
> Although just to save time I only did t1300 and t1308 since I believe those were
> the only ones that should be affected.  I can write a script that
> would run the whole
> test suite overnight for me and make sure the series shakes out okay,
> if you'd like.

What I like does not matter.

What I pointed out for 04/10 wouldn't have been caught by your testing anyway, as both the code and the test had matching unnecessry changes. I was wondering if you are relying too heavily on just tests and without actually proofreading the changes to see if they still make sense in the context of the updated series, and if my suspicion was correct, if there are something reviewers can do to help the authors.