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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 B6F961F4D7 for ; Mon, 16 May 2022 16:26:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="wrYqc9z0"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343573AbiEPQZr (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2022 12:25:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42298 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233696AbiEPQZq (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2022 12:25:46 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73E0BDE9A for ; Mon, 16 May 2022 09:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBD818EA2E; Mon, 16 May 2022 12:25:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; 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=0RzUdwRweKkT 3rzNWskQFOZo1kACSTEBi/PtlCDeyE4=; b=wrYqc9z0pAVEnBaGDL5kLFqcVbiy D7cvy0lTNqhsi1SqX7zVaVBggBMcaXPUusWBKcIe7lMnYoTBYR8Pm8vXpkhi3WPA ydOpp+8/DlkJ+IdNirRG/LJlXP8ac6ZNbGG1vqmXYACpMLhxcQ14DSqm41r/oZ4H phzgXCPQMNubxzY= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BDB18EA2D; Mon, 16 May 2022 12:25:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.65.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0DFC318EA2C; Mon, 16 May 2022 12:25:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n?= Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, bagasdotme@gmail.com, johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] t0034: add negative tests and allow git init to mostly work under sudo References: <20220510174616.18629-1-carenas@gmail.com> <20220513010020.55361-1-carenas@gmail.com> <20220513010020.55361-4-carenas@gmail.com> <20220516130753.kgelgbfovs5kze7h@Carlos-MacBook-Pro-2.local> Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 09:25:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20220516130753.kgelgbfovs5kze7h@Carlos-MacBook-Pro-2.local> ("Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n=22's?= message of "Mon, 16 May 2022 06:07:53 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D33E7788-D534-11EC-906C-C85A9F429DF0-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Carlo Marcelo Arenas Bel=C3=B3n writes: > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 10:27:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Carlo Arenas writes: >>=20 >> >> Hmph, it may not be needed, but it should still work, in which case >> >> it probably is still worth testing, even with the optional patch #4= . >> > >> > Just because it works, it doesn't mean we have to test it. >>=20 >> Yes. It all depends on the answer to this question > > Not quite, after all this is part of the "git" testsuite and therefore = will > only apply if it would be testing git's functionality, and in this case= it > does not. It is immaterial if the way how "sudo sudo git" behaves is "git's functionality" or not, because what we care about is what the end user sees as a whole and it does not matter all that much to them where the observed behaviour comes from. The rule is simple. If we care about the behaviour to stay with us over time, we ensure it with a test. If we are certain that no users will depend on such a behaviour and are willing to break them (i.e. users who depend on how "sudo sudo git" behaves, which is an empty set) when we need to update the code, then we don't. And if that changes with and without the optional patch #4, it makes it more important to have test (if we care, that is). Later we may find what patch #4 does is detrimental to user experience and decide to tweak it out (not necessarily with a revert of #4, but doing an equivalent of reverting of it only in the code part and not tests). In any case, as I said in the beginning, this was merely "a bit surprised" and "not a serious enough thing to trigger a reroll", so I will stop wasting our time on this thread. Thanks.