Re: [PATCH 00/38] SHA-256, part 3/3
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 11, 2020, 00:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqr1tirio5.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20200710195507.GK9782@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On 2020-07-10 at 15:14:37, Derrick Stolee wrote: >> On 7/9/2020 10:46 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: >> > This is the final part required for the stage 4 implementation of >> > SHA-256. >> >> WOOHOO! What a milestone! > > I'm also excited about this. It's been a lot of work, but we're finally > here.
This topic sits at the tip of 'seen' (formerly known as 'pu'), and
https://travis-ci.org/github/git/git/jobs/707050671
shows that t7063 is broken at the tip of 'seen'.
- At the tip of this topic, t7063 passes. - There is no other topic that touches t7063 in flight. - seen^1, i.e. everything other than this topic merged, passes t7063.
Ahh, this is an easy one. It is an interaction between this one and the dl/test-must-fail-fixes-6 topic.
There are a few hunks like this in this topic.
- test_cmp ../expect ../actual + test_might_fail test_cmp ../expect ../actual
and the other series tightens test_must/might_fail so that these test helpers can only be used on "git" (other users should just use "! cmd" or "cmd || :" instead).
I do not think it was an explicit objective for Denton's series to catch the use of test_might_fail with test_cmp specifically, but I offhand do not think of a good use case for saying "expect and actual may sometimes be the same, but they may be different", so in that sense, it contributed to find a nonsensical code. I haven't read thru all the 38 patches of this series, so there may be an obvious reason why we may want to have such a thing expressed that I am missing, though...
Thanks.