Re: [PATCH 2/4] t13xx: do not assume system config is empty

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:57:02AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> >> "either" meaning "we do not need to add --local and we do not need
> >> GIT_CONFIG_NOSYSTEM"?
> >
> > Yes. I didn't test it with your core.abbrev patch 4/4, but I _didn't_
> > have to touch their expected output after pointing them at a non-empty
> > etc-gitconfig file in the trash directory. Which implies to me they
> > don't care either way (which makes sense; they are asking for a specific
> > key which is supposed to be found in one of the other files).
> 
> There is a bit of problem here, though.
> 
>  * If we make t1300 point at its own system-wide config, it will be
>    in control of its contents, so "find this key" will find only it
>    wants to find (or we found a regression).
> 
>  * But then if it ever does something that depends on the default
>    value of core.abbrev (or whatever we'd tweak in response to the
>    next suggestion by Linus ;-), we cannot really allow it to do
>    so.  We'd want t/gitconfig-for-test to be the single place that
>    we can tweak these things, but we'll have to know t1300 uses its
>    own and need to make the same change there, too.

Right, but I think that's fine. Tests that care deeply about the
contents of etc-gitconfig are unlikely to care about core.abbrev. And in
the off chance that they do, then the worst case is...they get updated
to handle core.abbrev (either passing a command line option, or just
putting core.abbrev in their test file).

I just don't see it being a problem. Adding core.abbrev for the whole
test suite is just about not having a big flag day where we change all
the tests. Changing one or two tests (and again, I'd be surprised if we
even have to do that) doesn't seem like a big deal.

-Peff