From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA27C433B4 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:22:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54DBB6140F for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:22:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343705AbhDUXXO (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:23:14 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:63359 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231296AbhDUXXN (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:23:13 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D2B136301; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:22:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=9kzxIq7cIo5/0eK/EC0EWHz6Cy4=; b=lqKyYL uHshzzVqnha8z3vA9tEdlsRvpJ2fcTIjce2urxE/pKZYUG5tORLyYG96iHTRC4kq KkYz3mxDau4Tx3CXsEh5fyq8fQcZxPX99SlZHmsenm8JfLLnD5ESuSUSNO/C1ibk 8wQZIHiOMx1WJXS0AICdAJBs8Z5baM7tN1+2I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=uHRUTdyxzp4FDj5qd5oyBYtSKQqDbwPy 9RYojEl1wXmLwGBcfSUycnqlweAchucg2S/FMJ4t06sy2rhraGJ8Bjjoz3QB9DEO Z4lBpiM6c2iy56DJ73FGIyr72K2sQy8+PXdIZp+VdDPTYcFTADhs2EoSTcRL5kah xpxmyr4aba0= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003FD136300; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:22:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E0CD1362FB; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:22:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Han-Wen Nienhuys Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget , git , Jeff King , Ramsay Jones , Jonathan Nieder , Johannes Schindelin , Jonathan Tan , Josh Steadmon , Emily Shaffer , Patrick Steinhardt , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Felipe Contreras , Derrick Stolee , Han-Wen Nienhuys Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 23/28] Reftable support for git-core References: <2fd7cb8c0983501e2af2f195aec81d7c17fb80e1.1618832277.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:22:35 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Han-Wen Nienhuys's message of "Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:19:09 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 758DC446-A2F8-11EB-B586-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: >> IOW, do you want the above to read >> >> if test -n "$GIT_TEST_REFTABLE" >> then >> test_set_prereq REFTABLE >> else >> test_set_prereq REFFILES >> fi >> >> when both series are in effect? > > Yes, but on 2nd thought it's probably better to stick with just > REFFILES, and rewrite any reftable specific tests as !REFFILES. I guess that is both good enough and simpler. The only possible downside is that it would be cumbersome if we ever need to support the third ref backend, but I expect that it won't happen before the reftable support solidifies, and under that assumption, the simpler the better. Thanks.