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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81EE20248 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726162AbfDIJno (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 05:43:44 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com ([209.85.128.68]:40781 "EHLO mail-wm1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726035AbfDIJno (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 05:43:44 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id z24so2516499wmi.5 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 02:43:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YmJbzORutEFj40awrTB2bpfliqxr9pdTZNiiB4WhfTQ=; b=D3cdANCddSG13oG1Gu8yQDqkk9MRvQbjklmIFmoSHE/qNKtweQPLDQ8Uxip1VqBFHm 8I9K8qFyPC0VgWkQ8VMNmOqWt1OrncXEMMZUjjuVQ3mqryRkCCkFm1cCYCsfDD55hFTS 1pGWKaaL8LBxhbzj17u+5QKXofa3nNiFSw9AAOayyOX2/hCE1h28y06/qOVL7dy9LkXH Gn+11lpaQytipGRQKZcU6Y9NcdMDWR/xNpCv/eWuJFuC7gUh9mQAyWOY8ZpvDEPw/s1M DW/8+BwVxq+CDiIoU/eQPL6c678kAd6HRmy65ghxhrHVC250bQDJQZEHqYLNxE0E3+Wr 873Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YmJbzORutEFj40awrTB2bpfliqxr9pdTZNiiB4WhfTQ=; b=V2IhDo51/I1rmOIFrfUGwHlcg3lh+rew+FFObEfywpFOFOMsLrkTMyP/UguY/jMfmy gTPTxjGqkPLmjlTVAnbQ/y2aQjfGyE1JjlfR3+9czuazR4ABU1MPXoHI6hnDNOL2SyCc iUMVc4rGdRMrI/U5FnrZWSMcLOPNXr2J5JL69ntrLuyTjBIHpWNZppwbkEnF2mXJD5Vb kz351atfCMlNQcjq4C85+u+tUzj/5AvVOcDXOEHHcRwYnLjPOKuwO6DNwxFb7sW4+1IW NPbR3QOLveAWNMy3B3vURzhvGl/7ESarW6vjtlNaS66QU1LC45mPZ6z8A8ju6+mZVp1h xhmA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUl1gGKdO8xpKZ/PNJgZUVbs17+U2MTGXCWSn8KEj8XNMlDI++f MYkavpXbgBjTPTZ5EPy8WAqguBAT4v4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzVU8NY9C0g2KOE1MD06Ifk7/SH8htmTXp2YMMegpQ90gc9S7D1A7vwZO1GFjjY0M+mYhXYag== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4e19:: with SMTP id g25mr21850336wmh.9.1554803022458; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (141.255.76.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.76.255.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j7sm45575524wrt.96.2019.04.09.02.43.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Apr 2019 02:43:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sha1-file: test the error behavior of alt_odb_usable() References: <20181204132716.19208-2-avarab@gmail.com> <20190328200456.29240-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20190329134603.GB21802@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87pnq9aipl.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <874l78a3rz.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <8736mra7nq.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 18:43:41 +0900 In-Reply-To: <8736mra7nq.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFy?= =?utf-8?B?bmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Tue, 09 Apr 2019 10:45:45 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > I'll leave it up to you if you want to queue just the test patch or drop As I said in a separate message, I think it is good to make sure that fsck does not crash. I do not think it is good to grep in its output. > it. I figured I'd re-send just that since I figured just fixing the > blindspot of the current behavior would be a good thing on its own, not > as an endorsement of the current behavior, just a "this is the current > known behavior" regression test. If the behaviour is undesirable one, we could document the current "breakage" with "test_expect_failure", whether we plan to fix it immediately. It is OK if readers cannot tell between a bug that is expected to stay forever with us, or a bug that somebody is actively working on. But unfortunately, there is no separate "test_merely_documenting", that is different from "test_expect_success", so even if we claim "this is not an endorsement, but is merely documenting the current behaviour" when we add such a test, there is no way for future readers to tell between the two, short of going back to "git blame" and seeing the log message. For that reason, I do not think it is a good practice to document the "current behaviour that happens to be" the same way as "the behaviour we desire" in test_expect_success.