From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff•net>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx•de>,
Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail•com>,
git@vger•kernel.org, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google•com>,
David Aguilar <davvid@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: sh -x -i -v with continuous integration, was Re: [PATCH 1/4] t7601: test for pull.ff=true overrides merge.ff=false
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 12:07:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq1tigfij8.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150516152858.GA19269@peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sat, 16 May 2015 11:28:58 -0400")
Jeff King <peff@peff•net> writes:
> Do we object to having to sprinkle the "verbose" throughout the test
> scripts?
Yes.
An unconstrained "verbose" that applies to anything would make
people less careful to come up with more useful abstractions,
e.g. test_line_count, which I view as a bigger problem.
"verbose test", regardless of how it is spelled, either as two words
"verbose test", a "verbose_test" helper, or a helper function that
overrides "test", share the same issue, as their unconstrained-ness
comes from the fact that test is too broad a command. I'd rather
want to see us move more in the direction of encouraging things like
test_line_count, which makes it easier to write new tests with less
mistakes (e.g. by hiding the BSD wc pitfall "$(wc -l <file)", in
test_line_count's case).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-16 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-13 9:52 [PATCH 0/4] make pull.ff=true override merge.ff Paul Tan
2015-05-13 9:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] t7601: test for pull.ff=true overrides merge.ff=false Paul Tan
2015-05-14 13:06 ` Johannes Schindelin
2015-05-14 16:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-14 16:53 ` sh -x -i -v with continuous integration, was " Johannes Schindelin
2015-05-14 17:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-16 15:28 ` Jeff King
2015-05-16 19:07 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2015-05-18 18:45 ` Jeff King
2015-05-18 20:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-18 20:50 ` Jeff King
2015-05-18 20:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-16 12:33 ` Paul Tan
2015-05-13 9:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] pull: make pull.ff=true override merge.ff Paul Tan
2015-05-13 9:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] Documentation/config.txt: clarify that pull.ff overrides merge.ff Paul Tan
2015-05-13 9:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] pull: parse pull.ff as a bool or string Paul Tan
2015-05-14 12:59 ` [PATCH 0/4] make pull.ff=true override merge.ff Johannes Schindelin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-19 13:22 sh -x -i -v with continuous integration, was Re: [PATCH 1/4] t7601: test for pull.ff=true overrides merge.ff=false Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqq1tigfij8.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=davvid@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=johannes.schindelin@gmx$(echo .)de \
--cc=peff@peff$(echo .)net \
--cc=pyokagan@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=sbeller@google$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox