Re: [PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq

Johannes Sixt [off-list ref] writes:

And the reason for this is that we always told people "don't use seq"
and they submitted an updated patch. What would we have to do now? We
have to tell them "don't use seq, use test_seq". Therefore, the patch
does not accomplish anything useful, IMO.

The function should really just be named 'seq'.

Or how about this strategy:
...
but it is not my favorite.

Why not?  That implementation looks like a logical and natural
consequence of "should relly just be named 'seq'" suggestion.

Having said that, we already say "don't use cmp, use test_cmp", so
it might not be such a big deal, even though I find the reasoning in
the first paragraph I quoted above from your message quite sane and
convincing to me.