Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

2 messages, 2 authors, 2016-07-06 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-07-06 14:51:33

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] 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...


Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
Date: 2016-07-06 15:35:16

Hi Junio,

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help