Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Make git-svn work with gitdir links

"Philip Oakley" [off-list ref] writes:

From: "Joachim Schmitz" <redacted>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 2:19 PM

quoted

Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Barry Wardell [off-list ref] writes:

[...]

quoted

quoted

Thanks for your persistence ;-) As this is a pretty old topic, I'll
give two URLs for people who are interested to view the previous
threads:

   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/192133
   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/192127

You would want to mark it as test_expect_failure in the first patch
and then flip it to text_expect_success in the second patch where
you fix the breakage?  Otherwise, after applying the first patch,
the testsuite will break needlessly.

I'd just apply them the other way round, 1st fix the problem, 2nd
add a test for it

Isn't it a case of, 1st demonstrate the problem with a test, and then
2nd  fix the problem.

Those less principled could could simply "fix" a non-existent problem
merely to get themselves into the change log, or worse, even if one
may fix-test under the hood.

For a small/trivial fix, fixing the code and protecting the fix from
future breakages by adding tests that expect success in a single
commit is the most sensible thing to do.  People who are interested,
and people who are auditing, can locally revert only the code change
to see the new tests fail fairly easily in such a case.

For a more involved series, it is easier to demonstrate a breakage
by adding tests that expect failure in the first commit, and then in
subsequent commits, to fix a class of bugs in the code and flipping
expect_failure into expect_success for the tests that the updated
code in the commit fixes.

For this particular topic, squashing the two patches into a single
commit may probably be the more appropriate between the two.

Thanks.