From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3661F1F51C for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 06:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753984AbeEaGwt (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 02:52:49 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:37309 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753913AbeEaGws (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 02:52:48 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id l1-v6so52047273wmb.2 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 23:52:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gu8Xat3Y4csDVOw50q950L9LWm7rb9qrqQkler13/9g=; b=L02bdB/pyUTenDENSmpBjVHCEsqdSUR/mx9uRfM1tIqlhOOF76h2BZmZaRYN2yKvh1 vw1pIax6Ey6+rCKEK5/jSd6TB2Ft3zr8StSP3ziZnCNSKFSdQ27DJ+xUDd8Zi7ZYFXcN +z60Ac5Ovi6rZjRTUwRRAipMBAA542K3SEQZxe3+wo4tk6aByR8ZfEaiT5gtjqyhPFF3 VJZWebM5ZhAvQY5bP88pHH5eXTOqDkH2nn/y7dPUh7jHt89YbbGZr318mDkpKPPCJQbe 8Hoajq+3XoowSVjewwUotPvoHmoGT1CKq1P/5htzVXBT0o30nF6qlGIZjcYO37eLo4e+ weNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gu8Xat3Y4csDVOw50q950L9LWm7rb9qrqQkler13/9g=; b=uU8f+ozAk3MAxqlBj2Ul8g5iGOpsBt6Ld+9AV6+KzyySFPPo/mUOxHaLaXbjcbLEoJ AIMXnXotFk45GY4C5jw/tZnrbSAQt90eiyrL0YBfroAClbCmUw6Iqa8gd4lPbE86EwJ8 0U0l2PvzDJsG8pErq/RLTlrMOrKGukWpZmQvImKLoeThznqpvXhKsmIXeM0mNetl84/N 8l/5qYaz4KCifjS4o6BTqLemWks1+kulTHo8v6Ks/0I7W2vHqIHZRwjYxihasTu8/cdv H/ihSlAebr8XXF7PNZBNudSYM3ZVs1nk5mUB5t2MyIXAkjb0X4a3oHJYZ6xNFYf5gWuc 1C0g== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1P+efup63NsPurTIVAoyE7/OmcCmv/2OLgpuezyVB2BHNmjNjX V/MSjy2zxUOIZi5t3nMLeBkU6ZMZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLC/VO7xLXOLT2r7kl7hkGhax2L+XAYQwwWDbWoZqLHnN/WZe33Pog7y6fjQoa9Uh4386fl3A== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e619:: with SMTP id d25-v6mr3131776wmh.23.1527749566748; Wed, 30 May 2018 23:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar (dhcp-089-098-184-206.chello.nl. [89.98.184.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u7-v6sm21101858wrp.44.2018.05.30.23.52.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 30 May 2018 23:52:45 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsckObjects tests: show how v2.17.1 can exploit downstream References: <20180529211950.26896-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20180529212458.GC7964@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87a7sif7is.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20180531055451.GD17344@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux testing (buster); Emacs 25.2.2; mu4e 1.1.0 In-reply-to: <20180531055451.GD17344@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 08:52:44 +0200 Message-ID: <876034fhab.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 31 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:59:07PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > I'm not sure what testing this buys us. [...] >> >> Half of what I'm trying to do here is clarifying the v2.17.1 release >> notes. The initial version Junio had & my proposed amendment on >> git-security was: > > I think that's a fine goal, but I doubt that adding a test is going to > help much. That's why I say this seems like it should be a documentation > patch and not a test one. People are much less likely to crawl through > our tests than they are to crawl through the documentation. > >> The other half, which is why I think this patch is needed, is making >> this aspect of it clearer to future maintainers. Before I started >> hacking on my recent fsck series[1] I didn't realize the intricacies of >> how *.fsckObjects worked in various situations, and I think explicitly >> calling this case out in code helps. > > I agree we should be testing that, but I don't think it should be tied > into this test that is specific to one particular fsck check. Don't we > already check the behavior of the various fsckObjects options elsewhere, > like in t5504? Okey, I'll turn this into some documentation in my re-rolled fetch.fsck.* series.