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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 3CE431F66F for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:35:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726148AbgKKRf5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:35:57 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35274 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725975AbgKKRf5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:35:57 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-x843.google.com (mail-qt1-x843.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::843]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6F7CC0613D1 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:35:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x843.google.com with SMTP id m65so1828051qte.11 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:35:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3io3ms6WLg7nDhuLKHrrQa0cKDQcXklf+rUIOtreqD0=; b=m0Yflq99n89HUOSFjuiSUd3aWyiQNkFoSp7oUs/vyuHgZRsS6jNZd4q5Abb1AQxutV qz3+gMwLAuXrHSI75ac1T+kTk66i1p8StEdeMVY3R4j3qMI27ZDbtGiEsWW899sOtdw7 Fw8Qbw/91QmHghk/2Tu2dgYpkfPxfegCCsx7XUV/RRpCOPQOOMblTOImJIIXWv0VdoK6 73vtd6ElI4rhPgXUgX6S5kJbmEbiDVOkvHQz1mGfCqAGiaEM4iQUOIAXwm2u02M1HYRB IBlz7wZcsfz1y0G1ZXi7eDQFt/7t1mkXg6lGH3xX3PrLce8q4gT5wyqyc68hVThQbqVs +fmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3io3ms6WLg7nDhuLKHrrQa0cKDQcXklf+rUIOtreqD0=; b=Ux8ZKnLAl2O0aYpxFCXsmWFgCf/ACjfHR4TUgvJdmBye3/dvIz3yP+SjCHlpkXnzNe aS6d6qUO9t8zIBzXTYr29bCtuyWoKUIz89JAPcwMKwV4E+GEwiRVS3lKNtw0NFR59N7e 6xk9Xm1WDbNzItIw9EyOh/xtHuqEd75wNM+F8vnOVBjEbjaSPxHAWOLHY5buCKC7wzYX kg8KA+qo/o6aV+geucq18bSjRe4UiTxnk9dtfaphd9yfQn1LO9QyyizbQwfS/92KJRn/ WWimxgtOWI1/q/lQtq/f9MIOPO/lYjbrE4gM3R8dMmpsMj/wUxdJnee5eCmSxRReuWP9 SJUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53089IjKL7gmUHXfUspzkND0kYAoTgGnmGt9GrtHGj9skE5V+VUM E92z90JofDBJAC28dS+74N4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzhi8V6kWOkW+ijN92v4oeiIM0/jQA5LcwrMfXyrgrLOB4JQu5uvVD3/WiA+Sq5BpQ8uUGDnA== X-Received: by 2002:aed:2726:: with SMTP id n35mr10057924qtd.254.1605116156168; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:35:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.127] ([192.222.216.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a3sm2707701qtp.63.2020.11.11.09.35.55 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:35:55 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] submodules: test for fetch of non-init subsub-repo From: Philippe Blain In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:35:53 -0500 Cc: Peter Kaestle , Git mailing list , Stefan Beller , Johannes Schindelin Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <37DD13D4-FBE4-4DB7-85F5-824E850BA9AE@gmail.com> References: <1604413399-63090-1-git-send-email-peter.kaestle@nokia.com> <1604910829-49109-1-git-send-email-peter.kaestle@nokia.com> <1604910829-49109-2-git-send-email-peter.kaestle@nokia.com> To: Junio C Hamano X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Junio, > Le 9 nov. 2020 =C3=A0 12:52, Junio C Hamano a = =C3=A9crit : >=20 > Peter Kaestle writes: >=20 >> This test case triggers a regression, which was introduced by >> a62387b3fc9f5aeeb04a2db278121d33a9caafa7 in following setup: >=20 > Also, it probably is a better arrangement, after explaining how the > current system does not work in the log message, to have the code > fix in the same patch and add test to ensure the bug will stay > fixed, in a single patch. That way, you do not have to start with > expect_failure and then flip the polarity to expect_success, which > is a horrible style for reviewers to understand the code fix because > the second "fix" step does not actually show the effect of what got > fixed in the patch (the test change shows the flip of the polarity > of the test plus only a few context lines and does not show what > behaviour change the "fix" causes). I had learned by browsing the list that this was the preferred way to submit patches for bug fixes and regressions for this project, but I had not yet read a good justification as to *why* it was preferred.=20 Thanks for spelling it out; I think a quick paragraph about this = somewhere in SubmittingPatches would be a good addition for new contributors. Cheers, Philippe.