Re: [PATCH v4] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

This patch automates the process of determining which tests failed
previously and re-running them.
...

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <redacted>

I stored both versions in files and compared them, and it seems the
single word change in the proposed commit log message is the only
difference.  I would have written "Automate the process...", though.

If you are resending, touching up to cover all points raised by a
reviewer and doing nothing else, having "Reviewed-by: Jeff King
[off-list ref]" would have been nicer.  

Will queue.  Thanks.

Hi Junio,

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This patch automates the process of determining which tests failed
previously and re-running them.
...

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <redacted>

I stored both versions in files and compared them, and it seems the
single word change in the proposed commit log message is the only
difference.  I would have written "Automate the process...", though.

Yes, we have different styles. Thanks for letting my commit keep my commit
message this time ;-)

If you are resending, touching up to cover all points raised by a
reviewer and doing nothing else, having "Reviewed-by: Jeff King
[off-list ref]" would have been nicer.

TBH I am not at all sure that I know when to add those footers and when
not. After having been asked to remove such a footer, I decided to *not*
include them by default.

Having gray zones about the footers strikes me as similar to having gray
zones in the coding style guidelines: it sure gives the contributors more
freedom, but it also creates uncertainty and as a consequence takes up a
lot of reviewing space and time (hence taking away space and time from
reviewing the code for bugs).

In other words: while I appreciate the idea of giving contributors such as
myself a lot of leeway, I would love even more to be able to automate away
tedious and boring tasks (such as adding Tested-by: or Reviewed-by:
footers, or for that matter, addressing code style issues before any
reviewer has to shed bikes so that they can focus on the parts of the
review that no machine can do for them).

Ciao,
Johannes