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=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 C3B872070C for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755294AbcGFPfG (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:35:06 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:50462 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755287AbcGFPfE (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:35:04 -0400 Received: from virtualbox ([37.24.141.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MO7Ca-1bFKg12LJs-005XPm; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 17:34:57 +0200 Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:34:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Johannes Schindelin X-X-Sender: virtualbox@virtualbox To: Junio C Hamano cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <0df34c45db5b1500e55262c8948c9140e7ad6cb8.1467210629.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Co04SwNdB4zScITzGar7gaNaRCYQcAsxIsEg2afCo1myoj5x2SJ LPhMjO1ESmzghcQwIgjp37xX0Q8bGZKVJ+K2KixPvTZUHQk0NxPYrjlGmW1qbTsIV4pGqbB TBtQjBrx58p/X3dxvLuM0pPlkgWkDGNJHGrGFditBz9GihUhvAycshoCF+gTEAC/HGvASXS BykDVc9w41ZFYS5szDsnA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:7gvKp8gYOSI=:TUSo6d4DEkWPBiFqrfmcXD BhVX9YxVis7ZNMHjI7jtC1CduvZ582qWB1W/0clP/XpmrYl1HO5axLMRNSezEDjm38DmSkMzO XHLARE6L21INL70UrC+til3cnGJl+KuhjTyqKBtBzJ+uG73C7858sOHQJBxAiej6QYCPPfdS6 seWS4nIIAUd/UzZldOBnRy3oCwqrOv5/+k9L/4MnTonzmVSbYEuGRsEqlAPTdA9OaaZjvx/um yxBbbIRT8Tqa793aWblmMksTC0Yzqh+4FYQDSh+P5r+zNSddi/N/OkTSyym4hUQR1zNCATUmP NyNX8YA6SHYlKUutfzwhHl9/t/XzdI3zHPzf+PSLuBhDcfWUqqaflm8J1MDULBUZyeZ33Xw8N bwOdbIAHNh7m2D9s5Q86WE40qFiQv3LAdye0Vbo1WV7afP4MgiKvbmgAcXjFlYxoulBJw+aD+ 465+6bTCDZMBc3sNFIGBPdhM/Ht5IymY1NKb3Qa1S7ycvIBvP9rfFaipNfRBLYATeLc/bQawl vN9bzVY5ZsEDvMzpGpyXZtK5Oa/B9DuBVe2lZqJudt1hFIGrfh7eNROLrNfQRunC6XWcNV0nK 0uxZnOmAyCjzzHigR2BWP4yYyTszCcyyz5EI1BznCluP6CXAwGgMCYFRBFwgrbeQk0yfjvTT1 gPCb3CzrFxSAtoW2AEUNHqEccx2rnB7pDfSSjFK1IK4rqqceQy/Qr9D9Vg9m8aAXOwVlJyykf BidSO55P2XgTrdZNW/C2eMCa+dzmyyIgQKthmR42vcNEnC9zzeYL90WptzddTGDaQjx0+4Cp/ 7jaHDVB Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Junio, On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > Of course I agree that it would be very nice to have a test at a later > > stage that does exercise GPG if it is available. But would it really > > be so terrible to have a (simpler, not as complete) test that is > > exercised *also* when GPG is *not* available? > > What I would expect is "In the ideal world, we may want both, and in an > imperfect world in which we can have only one, we'd rather have the > 'even though we can run it only when GPG is available, we make sure that > we drive GPG correctly' one, dropping the other.", simply because the > end result matters more, not how the instruction to the end user is > phrased. > > Sure, in even less perfect world, having a superficial test might be > better than nothing, but reminding ourselves to aim high (and make sure > we document the decision when we punt) is an important part of the > purpose of the review process, so... Okay, so here is the deal: on the development machine where this was developed, I do not have gpg installed. So please take this test case just to make sure that things work as intended for the moment. Before sending the last rebase--helper patch series, I will make sure to add a real test that requires gpg, and submit that, too. Deal? Ciao, Dscho