From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B011F461 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 22:25:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726179AbfICWZH (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:25:07 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54568 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726079AbfICWZH (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:25:07 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432261910F; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:25:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=aP7/WdXiKa2OahoFZdvsLX4IN18=; b=DjzVHL DXWv3SxkipB/6RIXMIm9zKrmBj6/Tlke71AQc3NtTq3CO5rQoPB6bRWjpwG++bv1 Ba63Ahr4Ln3Ql/K0BXJHJVxEM9d32tksviuHAYKiwF4ZfA4BeqRbZkQuPQmFoX9b fGSEdHLymOBHojGOmFBU0z2vlnNNd2jm9eEj0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=d/fD38IFpPPkx+2JUiFCBl8NIfj5yXL6 hyZdmWAmquAZzETJ3Dh9xX4H0N+LddsvqqWBUq+0beImogtVBERd7WvOQzXTBRdx S2BpsfEhsVNtOFab30WcGTjy5J+tXVXuAE3EGJ2O1b0lpZFaDLJhIzQhWD6QTbov MQCAdVg5qCw= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368161910E; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:25:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CA111910C; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:25:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Git Mailing List , Derrick Stolee , Eric Wong , Jeff King , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Johannes Schindelin , Lars Schneider , Jonathan Nieder , Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] t6006: simplify and optimize empty message test References: <20190828002210.8862-1-newren@gmail.com> <20190903185524.13467-1-newren@gmail.com> <20190903185524.13467-2-newren@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:25:02 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:58:12 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: ACD8025C-CE99-11E9-A0EC-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: > Ah, good catch. I checked out the commit before 1fb5fdd25f0 > ("rev-list: fix --pretty=oneline with empty message", 2010-03-21), to > try and see the error before that testcase was introduced. I tried it > on a repo with both an actual empty commit message, and one with a > commit message consisting solely of a newline. Both styles exhibited > the bug that the testcase was introduced to guard against. That's a good thing to know to decide what is a reasonable thing to do here. As we are creating two commits, perhaps adding one with and another without the extra blank line may give us more diversity, and explaining why we are adding two slightly different one (i.e. because the original bug was there for both shapes of commits) would help us not wasting the time we already spent discussing this change ;-) Of course, we can alternatively just keep the patch as-is and update the explanation as to why we are testing with commits different from the original when we are supposed to be making this change for performance reasons (i.e. the symptom manifests either way, so why not using the form that is easier to create?). Thanks for working on this ;-)