From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589ED1F991 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:50:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752334AbdGaRus (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:50:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.83.50]:32990 "EHLO mail-pg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752279AbdGaRup (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:50:45 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id c14so48633085pgn.0 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:50:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4tqVAbrnf4Ohf1yO8GRxoA73WBTSw//JkQha75yxmIo=; b=n7ZrQ2Ui6lj3/vhM2vxpCn/Ftss2CdWfihbbDPUvYB2UkVnGy2e5zc+42tmNU99u0d qGPsgwgMWiml64ajtv4H3ip+Uc9mY28M/fEUPSnsmFxr56jCg6PufJ0lzNtPnps+YH1P FAxcpYAHoAJXbbwIZkacUiVnHEKE1bXigAaRFp6IlP/KsuqqNSoUjLfE/AIKPHSY8loZ wiWQQNHOIieH+BJ2DfSgEEL5YGEYAJT+HypsbH8A5iT+jMfPx15t/4l2gIvtGM2SyTbg AzWrmaZNkXXVSvrJ3bHBmU3B243iLZrhdBiifn1GHjfWKDpGG5l/5xyBulaYmcJs/Aml VDpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4tqVAbrnf4Ohf1yO8GRxoA73WBTSw//JkQha75yxmIo=; b=p15/i9EUq+iw/sUbWKvvjeuyu+6kf/EsKzcrk95frvunwN49F+bK4HweXpGmR8ekx/ HOq4foNrsgp6s30RwVAZBtOpiel9ZtAC9CYBFnxP2fjZ2+/VeSfn8raolK4GKJHacuR3 YtIUc9UKcdNpOfy6D80oWNuRQkv+q3QG95MIPmsmT+udqfE9QG5AQZ91B9XseGIxTjPX h967CIaxD05Zo0xm25/jtxbwJcpdSBYtTtwL+ggwyEywodpFCwWx2MmsSN8v6h4lGVGv rwJ+BuqZ8/vZG3gRnQ31aVXWnjKZ28nUzm0SD4HU48DrsGYwL7pnHaLhtJh9XRUDSfBQ KmUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112K2u2Y1JdSU1KUW5pGKJn00QluuE4Cr8oQj1LPpzTik9ljuYqs /9Uk38EppMdTGycdMNm7SZVVJZfkAg== X-Received: by 10.84.174.3 with SMTP id q3mr18368640plb.289.1501523444868; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:50:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.165.238 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:50:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170731033812.tvclfckx3ascxa2m@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_=C3=85gren?= Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:50:44 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] t7006: add tests for how git tag paginates To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jeff King , Git Mailing List , Brandon Williams Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 31 July 2017 at 18:37, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > >> But here... >> >>> +test_expect_success TTY 'git tag -a respects pager.tag' ' >>> + test_when_finished "git tag -d newtag" && >>> + rm -f paginated.out && >>> + test_terminal git -c pager.tag tag -am message newtag && >>> + test -e paginated.out >>> +' >> >> I think this behavior is just buggy, and it might be better introduced >> as a test_expect_failure on "git tag -a does not respect pager.tag". >> >> Kind of a minor nit, as the series should end up in the right place >> either way, but it can be helpful if you end up digging back in history >> to the introduction of the test. > > Yes, I think that is essentially the same reaction I had to patches > 7 and 8, where it carries the "buggy" behaviour forward and then > fixes it. The way the series lays groundwork to introduce a > mechanism that can be used to address this behaviour in its earlier > patches strongly suggests to the users that this is considered a bug > by the author of the series to the user from early on, so adding > this as "expect failure" and then flip it to "expect success" when > the bug is fixed would be a more natural sequence of changes. Thanks both for very helpful comments. I admit I viewed it less as "fix buggy behavior" and more like "redefine wanted behavior". So I wanted to postpone the redefinition of the behavior until all the restructuring was done. Looking at this as a bug-fix does make carefully moving the bug forward look rather silly. I haven't responded to each of your suggestions individually where the answers would have been a mere "thanks, will do". They're still much appreciated and will help make v3 much better. Thanks. Martin