From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31671F406 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 14:55:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965112AbeEJOzF (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2018 10:55:05 -0400 Received: from mail-ua0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]:41432 "EHLO mail-ua0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935624AbeEJOzE (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2018 10:55:04 -0400 Received: by mail-ua0-f172.google.com with SMTP id a3-v6so1492673uad.8 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 07:55:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HVsTXa3OFBAryWG/a4rP/68ntH8i19rXQHGQHHZutfk=; b=cI3jvGxUd6QjDJHm3zxnQyU2xopCvYs8znHYiRsbMBqe0ZClJeG3ciaN4TnDJNVaJ3 d2Ybi3E6mH0FEd9jGConM0IIn6IB3/nJzdUhJIyHUUKvExPFAOS2cqAUOWVc+x5HMfC5 lXR/e7GQrI+1ndT+2uUBSnN8iNLPKH+OlLqrcF93pNMDwW/7xMGZEOoCeYt/btHcnOcG KgQ+6Lj5FjyUh9O36JrYr39B9aUS8ymu1HSrrnaApJbckt80o8iXkUwkg4QfKBeuLYRp WUrliOFhzsJdHtZ5x8zyBFPXBoHYTSO/0WU61TPff1P2ghSsuFdotHhfijzb7/E0lgvt KtVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HVsTXa3OFBAryWG/a4rP/68ntH8i19rXQHGQHHZutfk=; b=V9br5j4LbhMcmDW4+K/syIRE/ZVvjp8ljwsrnZEOOQpS7JT2Y7Pv6Hd2zo3a4KeuSJ pq1TmMADrzAieoPbOmWSpF1O1a+WOT/UHw4v8/ooIyjqnAwUckagOWKZL6uwDbjPLaR+ gGRgZvcXriO2iZfbrU5h8Zwuc+JLJi3q5hHqfc6vOk8eSAzpDu74ei1Mguif15H6eJx4 dHyGQqp6V6XBKW9AZaMQOs6WVAU1fvm5BQX2HqjG40eynLk4Ta5B74EBO9H6C+Sfd0IW KaL9U/0ieu6f9+11/bzSg/OxGngYPL/JuAi3Cu5aPbiI5t84J0Aogml68Iktw/J8svBo bjLw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwe/K8GF/IyNWCejzj8o7RGdlbv9pQOQOItVjQczQEYYgzJFXT8t 7g1TXBYSpGueqdEoZ4xPTpPyGnkDwJTOoa+X/VBN7A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpvn744XveL+yEP+Shu3TQ3TJMXpw6UvbqoaHs8o2aLv/d2B77DY+NIYejUwulj/0KTYgmIN+Nyi+EtJuh/Yhw= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5bd6:: with SMTP id z22-v6mr1271837uae.48.1525964104128; Thu, 10 May 2018 07:55:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.22.212 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2018 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180510143432.GC25617@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20180510135852.25232-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> <20180510143432.GC25617@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?SZEDER_G=C3=A1bor?= Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:55:03 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] t5310-pack-bitmaps: make JGit tests work with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 03:58:52PM +0200, SZEDER G=C3=A1bor wrote: >> Since testing bitmaps doesn't need a worktree in the first place, >> let's just create bare clones for the two JGit tests, so the cloned >> won't have an index, and these two tests can be executed even with >> split index enabled. > > Nice, this seems like a clever workaround. > > Reviewed-by: Jeff King > > The more heavy-handed approach would be to just disable the JGIT prereq > when GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX is in use, which would cover this and > potentially any other cases. This is nicer because it lets us continue > using the test. And it's not like we have a ton of jgit dependencies, > such that dealing with each individually would be a burden. We could also 'sane_unset GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX' in these two tests, but I think that we should do that only in tests that specifically check split index behavior (i.e. t1700).