On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:32:53AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:52 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 05:15:48PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:01 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
[snip]
> > Hm. I don't really know how to phrase this better. The preceding
> > paragraph already explains why we're discarding the extension and what
> > the consequence is. I added a sentence saying ", which will cause
> > failures when trying to access any refs."
> 
> To me the preceding paragraph said that we are overwriting the config
> file, but I just don't see how for example the above test overwrites
> anything. So maybe I am missing something obvious, or maybe you don't
> quite mean "overwrite", but I don't see how the extension would be
> discarded by the test which only seems to add stuff.

It happens before already, outside of any tests. See line 1036:

```
cat > .git/config <<\EOF
[section "sub=section"]
	val1 = foo=bar
	val2 = foo\nbar
	val3 = \n\n
	val4 =
	val5
EOF
```

Overall, I agree that this is rather hard to discover and that the tests
really could require a bigger refactoring to make them more independent
of each other.

I'll send another version that mentions this explicitly.

Patrick