Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] teach git pull to handle --log=<n>

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 10:11:37 -0700

Paul Tan <[email-masked]> writes:

> Since efb779f (merge, pull: add '--(no-)log' command line option,
> 2008-04-06) git-pull supported the (--no-)log switch and would pass it
> to git-merge.
>
> 96e9420 (merge: Make '--log' an integer option for number of shortlog
> entries, 2010-09-08) implemented support for the --log=<n> switch, which
> would explicitly set the number of shortlog entries. However, git-pull
> does not recognize this option, and will instead pass it to git-fetch,
> leading to "unknown option" errors.
>
> This patch series implements a failing test that demonstrates the above,
> and teaches git-pull to handle the switch --log=<n>.

Looks good.

One advice; for a small patch like this one (and the "pull.ff vs
merge.ff" one, too), it is not necessary or even desirable to do a
two-step "first add a failure test and then another patch to fix and
flip the expectation" series.  Just do the fix and add a test to
expect success.

After all, the primary reason why we add test is *not* for you to
demonstrate that what you did works as expected.  It is to catch
other people breaking what you did in the future.

Thanks.