Re: Allow "git shortlog" to group by committer information

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:35:36AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

-- >8 --
Subject: SQUASH???

Make sure the test does not depend on the result of the previous
tests; with MINGW prerequisite satisfied, a "reset to original and
rebuild" in an earlier test was skipped, resulting in different
history being tested with this and the next tests.

Yeah, this looks good, and obviously correct.

I do wonder if in general it should be the responsibility of skippable
tests to make sure we end up with the same state whether they are run or
not. That might manage the complexity more. But I certainly don't mind
tests being defensive like you have here.

-Peff

That seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure how you would implement
it in practice? Would we just "rely" on a skipable test having a "do
this if we skip, instead" block? That would be easier to spot but I
think still relies on the skip-able tests being careful?

Thanks,
Jake