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-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40DF1F8C4 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:57:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1353237AbiCXV73 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2022 17:59:29 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33500 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230110AbiCXV72 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2022 17:59:28 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 372E0B8216 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 14:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id e18so4096582ilr.2 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 14:57:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=yvmC5lDucQWQ0/XUj0AIJDcivu+49lqa9cSMh40QVs8=; b=PKJLa/5BYF/jP6p9HLN4kH1mVic1cg+tDH6J69PnXwiv63vB+V1Ic3ovqV5UU5k75K 4zf1wOh3HioEIr/NcYLAX8bzZhrvVlqWypXIs4aOO2Av5WV1Y3J3UCW1mMDc3FNAbg8L KDcH0KMU8iAIhePN5kbJYuGuRS5AB5JCsGFEGWIe4aRtRgvlApV7Le/eHTWktfjTq5r2 aCh8Bif3PeMSbQRHTsi4c3H/SXdmmBaYuFIkukYl+isAkfbNAO+jMkarbunTbVD0rpd2 yti1uW0ncA3GHIS5qz8P8iBBNY2FFCYWJPaX5ZkHwDetA1PvUNOFUZhHB6mF6+XQgllk pyWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=yvmC5lDucQWQ0/XUj0AIJDcivu+49lqa9cSMh40QVs8=; b=M2GZA023PygCNgNOHbREIEQ8DxACGIGdoBIUePRuiSZei0uAySPjFM/fbf0m48EQYG JjQXHgQtNctLKo/FowV+/GEJmeIHsLecVCmLZ1bBRGjSz3LffzRgDE9DKaYoynnYJ3rA MYYuHgMACEHc3UzvCQCsbGHy9qNgoxyNFdfwjO0ndPbt9LO1BeYGv2zx6GuTodX9/vJQ iih5fB2/7SzzAlTqRBhyvNNrmBOs/1BUlKJgZBp99+t3mccPwqVbtHxjZtxpXIHD1Jns awCeKxwoIibA0I8VnabvF/mGW89+rfGoG6QrJ2Wskw1pHxtcLl8lLXiDOe+iBZKFRzWY pyEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KdNwDP2oBr+b998YGPWpfIQjtjkkQetwcLM1Zqxk/o54Kq+HP DOPeGNNOAy01gW8vKhsZpldNpA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2mD1oU2B/UscTIxseIQqYNogCv7mGWvipYgUW9eah5pyEGmDWxLuMUYykxeTCM48O3asF2A== X-Received: by 2002:a92:c241:0:b0:2c8:7a67:ed5e with SMTP id k1-20020a92c241000000b002c87a67ed5emr1622666ilo.143.1648159075602; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 14:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n7-20020a056e021ba700b002c63098855csm2015120ili.23.2022.03.24.14.57.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 24 Mar 2022 14:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 17:57:54 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: A "why TAP?" manifesto (was: [PATCH] test-lib: have --immediate emit valid TAP on failure) Message-ID: References: <220324.8635j7nyvw.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <220324.8635j7nyvw.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 02:48:42PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > The commit message is strong on the what, very strong in giving verbose > > output that might or might not clarify the intention, and a little weak in > > the why and the greater context. > > I thought "so that it emits valid TAP" was sufficiently > self-explaining. I.e. we emit this machine-readable format, but in this > edge case our output is invalid TAP, now it's valid. I agree; if the justification is "something we use not-infrequently is broken" and the rest is "and this patch un-breaks it", I do not think we should devote much space to justifying why we use that thing in the first place. Our TAP output meets the bar (at least for me, personally) of not needing to be rehashed anytime we change it, so I don't have any complaints about Ævar's patch message here. Of course, we should be careful to avoid following that guidance _too_ much, since if it leaves us in a spot where we never question any past decisions, then I think we have gone too far. Thanks, Taylor