From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Bug report: Duplicate CRLF rewrite warnings on commit Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 12:46:57 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160513134953.GE2345@dinwoodie.org> <20160513181255.GA30700@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Adam Dinwoodie , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 13 21:47:08 2016 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 1b1J3D-0005kM-TY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 13 May 2016 21:47:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932243AbcEMTrD (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2016 15:47:03 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57151 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932165AbcEMTrB (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2016 15:47:01 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994F5177A7; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:47:00 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=oSKC84IPALcIvHTpIti/x4cRXcw=; b=SiXiG0 yoVrfZwN6UPZitbrXyT0hup6KSkKHeg6ueVHb726JkFMnFMPt3X6IXc3+Fr91njt kLw5dgMEv60K4EBz9hSF91Tz4/SEjVvOHUuXEt5JeUJNBIMrCbMfsiOfnRzyCj52 BXVhMQbgW1kSQzYOuN+wv7J33Y+hJ/SBpJ3DE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=xmyzDezbWzO101ATt/kvOGlCozf4BcwO YOVwfpttV3aRB+bqDdgJrUP9AUlNn9R2HsznDdkmaPKam27oRtzemT3ghoU0jK5Z +W+nUV8nPht3kvNqI/uWV5BakMJso8uQ27DHQH033RQlvT4XZi3qSfYMwFkCnB0E b7oPYuCT4kM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBC5177A6; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9794177A5; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:46:59 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20160513181255.GA30700@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 13 May 2016 14:12:55 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7512AFAC-1943-11E6-94A4-D05A70183E34-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 02:49:53PM +0100, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: > >> (Tangentially: what's the accepted practice for submitting failing test >> scripts? I've written a short test case to add to t0020 that shows this >> bugged behaviour, but I've got the vague impression from past emails >> that leading with the patch email adding the failing test case is not >> the expected way to do things on this list...) > > We don't want commits that fail the test suite, since it makes bisection > more difficult. But you can mark known bugs like: > > test_expect_failure 'git-foo should output bar' ' > ... > ' > > I think it's OK to submit a patch like that. Hopefully somebody picks > that up and combines it with their fix patch, but if not, then it at > least documents the failure for later generations. ... but we do not want to overdo this. An expect_failure helps when somebody is actually starting to work on a breakage by setting a goal, but otherwise nobody would look at them. I do not think we know if 120+ instances of expect_failure in t/ we already have are still all valid; some of them even might be requesting a behaviour that we decided is a wrong expectation later.