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-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38A91F55B for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 18:35:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729193AbgEUSfi (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 14:35:38 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:53788 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728240AbgEUSfh (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 14:35:37 -0400 Received: (qmail 15000 invoked by uid 109); 21 May 2020 18:35:37 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 May 2020 18:35:37 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 29920 invoked by uid 111); 21 May 2020 18:35:37 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:35:37 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 14:35:36 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Denton Liu , Git Mailing List , Taylor Blau , Johannes Sixt , Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] t: replace incorrect test_must_fail usage (part 5) Message-ID: <20200521183536.GA1308489@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:47:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Denton Liu writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > This is mostly a resend of what's currently queued in > > "dl/test-must-fail-fixes-5" except with a tiny bit of cleanup on the tip > > patch. I'd appreciate a review on this series so that we can finally get > > rid of that "Needs review" on the What's Cooking messages ;) > > Thanks. > > The OVERWRITING_FAIL one was the only one I was unhappy about, so it > would be good to have more eyeballs on it---perhaps other people > find the approach acceptable, or can suggest more readable and > understandable approach. FWIW, I don't really like it either. :) I gave my best shot at an alternative in reply to that patch. -Peff