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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6171F4B4 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 22:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2439817AbgJQWe1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Oct 2020 18:34:27 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62615 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2439785AbgJQWe0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Oct 2020 18:34:26 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8299ADD3; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 18:34:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=1edQCE6YYnH+ UDq5bDSSIttaXmg=; b=iaLrOtqct2FEBr6rKzqGduhgnuy7w5Oax5T1mpfzMwP2 e2xozD6h0C5OgvYWiB4Ktrv6pPgTDX6zR7Yi8Zg3jaZEGWkubQ24gBR0D+7UD74D 62T7Q2sMC/JZDw8MBI8BQeriNr/crhOZTrvY8iSPIIvwhEV6qu9gdAGa2lGMi5Q= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=M5HXIr IkqB24RrIwyQYi1vphfF1dlUMTP8WBwCG4VQK2wPQL/15NYKGFKUyCd4Zd6QnO9c 2tMr6QLWWZxqOs93Zrph6TrcVQdsXTPOQV6wlWOu/y9V1AiEm9IcOs+9xK+Rvud8 Nd6kwiq0Lm5qx+jJsMWsXzkPum600pvUpHRZE= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3CAD9ADD2; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 18:34:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E2E29ADD1; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 18:34:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Samuel =?utf-8?Q?=C4=8Cavoj?= Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sequencer: pass explicit --no-gpg-sign to merge References: <20201013213021.3671432-1-samuel@cavoj.net> <20201013213021.3671432-3-samuel@cavoj.net> <20201017220224.o6fs5ukwqq7sqgrb@fastboi.localdomain> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 15:34:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20201017220224.o6fs5ukwqq7sqgrb@fastboi.localdomain> ("Samuel =?utf-8?Q?=C4=8Cavoj=22's?= message of "Sun, 18 Oct 2020 00:02:24 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E85A97DC-10C8-11EB-A5B2-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Samuel =C4=8Cavoj writes: >> Now that we know that the root cause of the bug you fixed was >> because rebase rebase with the default merge strategy for two-head >> merges use separate codepaths from and all other rebases, I wonder >> if it is prudent to also test the same cases this series adds >> without giving "-s resolve". That would exercise the other codepath > > I will leave that for someone else to tackle eventually. We know that other codepath has been working even before this fix, but tests are not about showing off what we fixed, but are about making sure similar breakage won't be introduced by mistake in the future. Leaving it "for someone", when we know what the problem is and how to solve it, is asking for the "evantually" not materialize forever. > As the number of very similar test is slowly growing, do you think it i= s > worth copying (or making more generic) the test_rebase_gpg_sign for thi= s > situation as well? We currently have 4 almost identical tests (counting > the new one you suggested for v4). Just a thought, as it is simpler to > just add it at this point. Thanks for the feedback. That is a tough question. Often, a generic test helper makes it too easy to do a full matrix of tests and encourages us to overdo it, which we probably would want to avoid. I think what I've suggested so far is a bare minimum combination for code coverage.