Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/8] use "git diff" in the test suite

2 messages, 2 authors, 2016-06-15 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/8] use "git diff" in the test suite

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:42:56

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
Now that --no-index is supported by git's diff, we can use much of the 
test suite to do the job, instead of relying on GNU diff.

This is a bit work-in-progress, since the handling of "-" as a filename is 
not fleshed out yet, and we really should have the "--quiet" option. But I 
got side-tracked by the edit-patch-series script, and did not want to hold 
these patches off any longer.
As you said yourself [6/8], [7/8], and [8/8] are mechanical
conversions, and I do not think it is too much effort involved
on your side to "hold these patches off".

My preference is to apply [1/8] now, cook the result in 'next'
for a few days longer to see if anybody complains or finds
glitches in the diff-ni series so far, push it out to 'master'
and then apply [2/8] and [3/8] while on 'master'.  The remainder
would be forked into a topic branch and cooked in 'pu' and then
'next' as usual.

Also I do not think we would necessarily want [7/8] and [8/8].
It would help with tests on broken distributions whose 'cmp'
misbehaves when the output is redirected to /dev/null, but I do
not think it is a good enough reason to make the tests slower.

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/8] use "git diff" in the test suite

From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:42:56

Hi,

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Now that --no-index is supported by git's diff, we can use much of the 
test suite to do the job, instead of relying on GNU diff.

This is a bit work-in-progress, since the handling of "-" as a 
filename is not fleshed out yet, and we really should have the 
"--quiet" option. But I got side-tracked by the edit-patch-series 
script, and did not want to hold these patches off any longer.
As you said yourself [6/8], [7/8], and [8/8] are mechanical conversions, 
and I do not think it is too much effort involved on your side to "hold 
these patches off".

My preference is to apply [1/8] now, cook the result in 'next' for a few 
days longer to see if anybody complains or finds glitches in the diff-ni 
series so far, push it out to 'master' and then apply [2/8] and [3/8] 
while on 'master'.  The remainder would be forked into a topic branch 
and cooked in 'pu' and then 'next' as usual.
I fully agree.

BTW I think that using 020600 as mode for "-" when it means stdin would 
fix [4/8]...
Also I do not think we would necessarily want [7/8] and [8/8]. It would 
help with tests on broken distributions whose 'cmp' misbehaves when the 
output is redirected to /dev/null, but I do not think it is a good 
enough reason to make the tests slower.
I think with the upcoming "--quiet", which exits early on error, 
performance should be about par. Actually, I went off in this direction 
because I still use an OpenSUSE 10.1 install DVD, which has this broken 
cmp...

But I do not care deeply. (It was a good test case for diff-ni, though...)

Ciao,
Dscho
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help