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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 E28BD1F404 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751262AbeC3Mmw (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:42:52 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:51763 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751230AbeC3Mmv (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:42:51 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.129] ([37.201.195.115]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MLO9y-1f1LOs1aEM-000c8C; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:42:40 +0200 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:42:37 +0200 (DST) From: Johannes Schindelin X-X-Sender: virtualbox@dscho.gitforwindows.org To: Jeff King cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Thomas Rast , Phil Haack , =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=86var_Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0_Bjarmason?= , Stefan Beller , Jason Frey , Philip Oakley Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] t1300: remove unreasonable expectation from TODO In-Reply-To: <20180329195218.GE2939@sigill.intra.peff.net> Message-ID: References: <5801f7529465b7dbdfbe3c105e2a8212c253ba0d.1522336130.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <20180329195218.GE2939@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Q7K59rIRB3IVF27rA3llnWhMi3qkrny99hSAJdbbObQE3UibrIX cWlvzywzI2Bwi/KgKsBMWYqco/s71VoercKYeCIkTiXQFEKbxr/Dhf3AoNWWzEuLxXPvRIs /rNbd77sMJEaKzh+BwiXWGnJHBCMj8NixLIdfrTKsBd1k4goam7gZspkBNC6pDIqHzEclLS qR6WkEZ1h13JuMmTgV5cQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:EkM7UGH0bQs=:bAoyVXKcK6AS0s24KGhHov cfNheFOKXVjDmVfkSL/BG7EMtKWByJY/fR1ud9Klef3ZZDMQNNyX716ZeVpQ7ZuH9xhjeQBUl 6+VZVXLAXEegnc8cjoDvtednxMX/NCLCcf1iSITL0BKyYRr1u9VsGzIiRMeE6OpiWOspYgSRd Aps13Wy/SKbJAXzLSulIH4UrQxCMIcfhemOLw8pO3cTt/gcCVi7N90lO868PEYdU+jJV0mMN2 gY8bUXabczus+SoYL0ccXoYoflD0sCJcEGvONrnyjpF/vcP9kdDPJ7H5XtsTe8orKCMo5pIxN lYcac5lkiM8R3kyPvJcAOdt/gqEilmNmffOtNJKT/LO/4iFeqhi05jnv0FiFqSNvTiivhAifO dS2L1mOcrCL1Qg1JYe1UTKaVGhf+GTiTOqRx4KfjJt9+ks1yNm/tQLsn/zobiGIIeKoirW3FF 3hGHsb8zghRD/4PoZ++DOxr0uXifPaxyiQ2iQ3L+/x+zYhFa9ObpLYG8KdaARmvSiyFX0JkcJ 9QuRupDEouXHx2H4H/DLGnIKQZudcs7/Q5dnr9xHEHdqINAFymHg7wd1BtAFmRZtTZ1BmrbN8 J2m2s+78+oTO/sL+IgqSrzlFm4l5awx65eMwbl4xzxfp6GwK/iDoNWCrEtmSbcsnJ9cyagIj9 qP5+a3reKIBijvr8KSwne2txin8ozt3tVP1TA85DhEsOB/sZ1sDoWYqowi+46R+Ost9lIlhiw xcmxmrCubioUI+kfhcw+UHZmFspWoXu9cRh+xf6lIdSgeBA9yd8XD0hMrNc+W5ALzgOS+PfQE o+dFHu6K8F+X6d/HTF+LPEbRf375QHY3QQBVKhYz8i9fZSG4mmnggkTOHCkQ1pDJVaHTKXi Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Peff, On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:18:50PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > In https://public-inbox.org/git/7vvc8alzat.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/ > > a reasonable patch was made quite a bit less so by changing a test case > > demonstrating a bug to a test case that demonstrates that we ask for too > > much: the test case 'unsetting the last key in a section removes header' > > now expects a future bug fix to be able to determine whether a free-form > > comment above a section header refers to said section or not. > > > > Rather than shooting for the stars (and not even getting off the > > ground), let's start shooting for something obtainable and be reasonably > > confident that we *can* get it. > > As I said before, I'm fine with turning this test into something more > realistic. Good. Of course, I worked hard to come up with a patch series, i.e. I put in some effort to placate anybody who would be offended by my accompanying rant. > An obvious question is whether we should preserve the original > unrealistic parts by splitting it: the realistic parts into one > expect_failure (that we'd switch to expect_success by the end of this > series), and then an unrealistic one to serve as a documentation of the > ideal, with a comment explaining why it's unrealistic. As stated before, I think it would be a mistake to mark up this unrealistic example with `test_expect_failure`. We do, after all, suggest occasionally to grep for that when somebody asks what they could work on. And you do not want to set somebody like that up for failure by pointing them to such a "bug". However, I did keep the example to demonstrate the expectation that sections with surrounding comments are kept. That was very much intended. And the reason I did not change the unrealistic example? So that it is easier to review in our patch-based review process, where I try to avoid hunks that might distract from the intent of the change. Ciao, Dscho