Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] t9001: non order-sensitive file comparison

From: Matthieu Moy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 08:01:30 +0200

Samuel GROOT <[email-masked]> writes:

> On 06/08/2016 06:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Samuel GROOT <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
>>> Actually we had issues when trying to refactor send-email's email
>>> parsing loop [1]. Email addresses in output file `commandeline1` in
>>> tests weren't sorted the same way as the reference file it was
>>> compared to. E.g.:
>>>
>>>   [email-masked]!
>>>   [email-masked]!
>>>   [email-masked]!
>>>   [email-masked]!
>>
>> And the reason why these addresses that are collected from the same
>> input (i.e. command line, existing e-mail fields, footers, etc.) are
>> shown in different order in your implementation is...?
>
> It's not shown in different order in our implementation, it's just a
> leftover of my refactor attempt [1].

I think the refactoring makes sense, but having this patch as PATCH 1/6
in a series about --in-reply-to confuses reviewers: they would expect
this patch to be useful to the others in the series.

If you have "reply to a message in a file" ready without the
refactoring, and a mostly ready refactoring, then I think it makes sense
to have two patch series, the first being only "reply to a message in a
file". If the refactoring itself is not ready, you may send a separate
series "tests clean up" and explain on the cover-letter that it's, well,
only a test clean up.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/