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=-4.1 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_NONE 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 49ADA1F45A for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:04:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726484AbfHLQEo (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:04:44 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:55959 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725843AbfHLQEn (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:04:43 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D958A7D373; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:04:41 -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; s=sasl; bh=Ffw4NwAwSPzW2iPN9plHNRG04zk=; b=LIQbAJ 4xU62kTsH2wj1UjdMn5TDCEu1T0PQO0+Kmcf/JYflwiy0kC5TZkH8USQnItYmb9v Rk7H2+ja9sePpo3GDW1skJtcv3a1y0ktrBT5xPYWt19OizM3j1KGT39ov+bmDvRX EVQr4nIOr/7p5Gta31wL+EdtlcPGCaummXDSE= 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=jyQcMI086SU/3RXV9k/8jM+g7C3RhxkN l48E9PLcNTeXDtjohAteVns5eZjGl9P4S2qTWQ1kEdcXN+m4k/mqE4LdKUxRcuCg CoIWB4tZWJFoToV4vqvTu//i5CyrFIfm/O/A+8lt51K5LrEeVhpJm+/w4ckXAHQp lFM/JDHQxIQ= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC897D372; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:04:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 063B07D371; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:04:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] t/perf: rename duplicate-numbered test script References: <20190812155803.GA25161@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:04:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190812155803.GA25161@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:58:03 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E3387A24-BD1A-11E9-A405-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > There are two perf scripts numbered p5600, but with otherwise different > names ("clone-reference" versus "partial-clone"). We store timing > results in files named after the whole script, so internally we don't > get confused between the two. But "aggregate.perl" just prints the test > number for each result, giving multiple entries for "5600.3". It also > makes it impossible to skip one test but not the other with > GIT_SKIP_TESTS. > > Let's renumber the one that appeared later (by date -- the source of the > problem is that the two were developed on independent branches). For the > non-perf test suite, our test-lint rule would have complained about this > when the two were merged, but t/perf never learned that trick. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King > --- > This is meant for 2.23, but obviously it's not hurting anything if it > doesn't make the cut. I double-checked that there is no conflict with > anything on pu, either. :) Thanks for being careful. Will apply. > t/perf/{p5600-clone-reference.sh => p5601-clone-reference.sh} | 0 > 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > rename t/perf/{p5600-clone-reference.sh => p5601-clone-reference.sh} (100%) > > diff --git a/t/perf/p5600-clone-reference.sh b/t/perf/p5601-clone-reference.sh > similarity index 100% > rename from t/perf/p5600-clone-reference.sh > rename to t/perf/p5601-clone-reference.sh By the way, do we feel differently (e.g. more risky) when we see 100% rename without the "index old-oid..new-oid mode" lines and when we see 99% rename with one, with a one-line change?