From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] t/Makefile: retain cache t/.prove across prove runs Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 11:27:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20120519152711.GA6979@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1335972712-20621-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <20120502160753.GA7193@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4FB7B429.80805@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 19 17:27:27 2012 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 1SVlYz-0003Mz-Jo for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 19 May 2012 17:27:25 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756733Ab2ESP1V (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 May 2012 11:27:21 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:49517 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754237Ab2ESP1U (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 May 2012 11:27:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 16709 invoked by uid 107); 19 May 2012 15:27:43 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sat, 19 May 2012 11:27:43 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 19 May 2012 11:27:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FB7B429.80805@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:54:33PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > I totally believe you that some of the variations that I listed in my > commentary don't work in the git context. I'm not a prove expert; I > just noticed that removing the .prove file is counterproductive and > breaks some other prove features. I also agree with you that it > would be dangerous to encourage partial testing and that it is > therefore not a priority to make the use case that you mentioned work > in the git context. > > I still think my patch makes sense. The error that Peff pointed out > was in my commentary, not in the patch itself or in the log message. > Junio, is there something else keeping you from applying this patch? Yeah, I hope my comments weren't interpreted as "don't apply this". Keeping the .prove file around is a prerequisite for lots of clever things, including some useful (--state=slow) and some less so (--state=failed). But if the latter case does not work (if we even want it to), it is because this patch is only the first building block. We should definitely apply it. -Peff