From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] blame/log -L: additional tests and bug fixes Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:41:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87ob9e25ww.fsf@hexa.v.cablecom.net> References: <1375258545-42240-1-git-send-email-sunshine@sunshineco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: , Junio C Hamano , Bo Yang , Johannes Sixt To: Eric Sunshine X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 03 16:46:45 2013 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 1V5d1K-0005mD-3p for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2013 16:41:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752007Ab3HCOlW (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:41:22 -0400 Received: from edge10.ethz.ch ([82.130.75.186]:9034 "EHLO edge10.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751829Ab3HCOlV (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:41:21 -0400 Received: from CAS21.d.ethz.ch (172.31.51.111) by edge10.ethz.ch (82.130.75.186) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:41:15 +0200 Received: from hexa.v.cablecom.net.ethz.ch (46.126.8.85) by CAS21.d.ethz.ch (172.31.51.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:41:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1375258545-42240-1-git-send-email-sunshine@sunshineco.com> (Eric Sunshine's message of "Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:15:34 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [46.126.8.85] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Eric Sunshine writes: > While working on multiple -L support for git-blame, I encountered more > issues with the existing -L facility in git-blame and git-log. This > series fixes these problems and adds a slew of new tests. > > Patch 6/11 (t4211: retire soon-to-be unimplementable tests) may be > controversial. Removal of these tests was effectively a decision made in > isolation since my request for input [1] regarding the issue generated > only a single response (from j6t). I agree with that decision. It's better to not leave any user-facing quirks just for internal's sake. The right thing would be to either expose enough of the range_set api through a test-range-set command, or just write all the tests in C. Both seem a bit excessive since the API doesn't have any users outside of log -L, which probably approaches "reasonable quality" now that you shaked it down quite a bit. As for the series, my tuits don't go further than a cursory read today, but from that it seems good. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch