From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthieu Moy Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] t9001: non order-sensitive file comparison Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 08:01:30 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1464369102-7551-1-git-send-email-tom.russello@grenoble-inp.org> <20160607140148.23242-1-tom.russello@grenoble-inp.org> <20160607140148.23242-2-tom.russello@grenoble-inp.org> <3090c61c-533b-7119-f5e4-7d99e62f6da4@grenoble-inp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Junio C Hamano , Tom Russello , git@vger.kernel.org, erwan.mathoniere@grenoble-inp.org, jordan.de-gea@grenoble-inp.org, e@80x24.org, aaron@schrab.com To: Samuel GROOT X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 09 08:01:50 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bAt2L-0002X9-DY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 08:01:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423203AbcFIGBo (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:01:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.imag.fr ([129.88.30.5]:55009 "EHLO mx1.imag.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161826AbcFIGBn (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:01:43 -0400 Received: from clopinette.imag.fr (clopinette.imag.fr [129.88.34.215]) by mx1.imag.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u5961TE6017400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:01:29 +0200 Received: from anie (anie.imag.fr [129.88.42.32]) by clopinette.imag.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u5961UcR026297; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:01:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: <3090c61c-533b-7119-f5e4-7d99e62f6da4@grenoble-inp.org> (Samuel GROOT's message of "Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:46:59 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (mx1.imag.fr [129.88.30.5]); Thu, 09 Jun 2016 08:01:30 +0200 (CEST) X-IMAG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact MI2S MIM for more information X-MailScanner-ID: u5961TE6017400 X-IMAG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-IMAG-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-IMAG-MailScanner-From: matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1466056894.4715@L6lW/Mm5qpeS6LgSzM8eVg Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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/