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 DF7241F9FD for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 17:40:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229887AbhCKRkU (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:40:20 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:57095 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230031AbhCKRkI (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:40:08 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D411214AB; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:40:08 -0500 (EST) (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=EllWy7bRgdgk xPoe6ugg7O4W028=; b=WemRBbJZvXytxMLYozrF69cvMzhn3PNvxbaU488jfyRC HX50mVtE9P7shjI8sVawrk+GQPWfPlql2q6pQkQy8xz9mwB78oxQ3BA9D2pupiWa rOpSeaSQz+Wj9KxriHR7iwEwo3CHDe0OuVXEf++fIrDZVs1Hzy2PCZj38RhyN6o= 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=KAHnVJ Of/yYqVdIvVR4jqu+/rs2dc98mO8Mn7hMKhc1NZHh9NblA9npc4scI99JXgmdWla r3BXQvuX1/ZwxkPZmh1ik2ewlXJAHCpwdL/sHhc68prZgy6WYjcZzaILxG1O92Kr d9L7RXya3LLTuM8Az3BmkqxcjJXW3ecxBxYSc= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105D91214A9; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:40:08 -0500 (EST) (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-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F57D1214A5; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:40:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , "brian m . carlson" , Eric Sunshine , Elijah Newren , Eric Wong Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tests: get rid of $_x05 from the test suite References: <20210311001447.28254-5-avarab@gmail.com> <87tupigf02.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:40:03 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87tupigf02.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFy?= =?utf-8?B?bmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:29:33 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D0B5FB1E-8290-11EB-BF2F-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >>> test_expect_success 'ls-tree --abbrev=3D5' ' >>> git ls-tree --abbrev=3D5 $tree >current && >>> - sed -e "s/ $_x05[0-9a-f]* / X /" check && >>> + sed -e "s/ [0-9a-f]* / X /" check && >>> cat >expected <<\EOF && >>> 100644 blob X 1.txt >>> 100644 blob X 2.txt >> >> This one is particularly iffy. The --abbrev=3D5 test is designed to >> ensure that the resulting abbreviated object names are at least 5 >> hexdigits long, even when the repository is so small that only 4 >> hexdigits are sufficient to avoid ambiguity, while allowing the >> output to be longer than specified 5 (when 5 turns out to be >> insufficient for disambiguation). >> >> So, I dunno. > > Yes, I think this patch should be dropped. Do you mind just dropping th= e > 4/4 and having it be a 3-patch series? I can also re-submit a v2 like > that if it's easier... As long as the earlier three are good to go, I can just cut the tip of the branch, or just drop it all now and send a three-patch series after the release. Either is fine. > My assumption in writing this patch was that it was fine because we tes= t > the details of abbrev behavior somewhere else, surely... I expected that the test whose title is "ls-tree --abbrev=3D5" is targetted towards testing the details of abbrev behaviour. Isn't that the case? Is the same assumption brought silent breakages to the other two patches to the tests, by chance? I only gave cursory look on them and don't think anybody else looked at them carefully.