Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] t: new helper test_line_count_cmd

3 messages, 3 authors, 2021-06-22 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] t: new helper test_line_count_cmd

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-19 06:50:21

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:
Indeed, I have no problem seeing this as a new mode of
test_line_count() triggered by an option. In fact, I suggested exactly
that[1] when this idea first arose (except I named the option `-c`
rather than `-e`, but the latter is fine). However, my suggestion was
pretty much shot down[2] (and I don't entirely disagree with [2],
which is why I didn't pursue the idea in [1]).
;-)  

Yeah, I still am skeptical that we'd gain much by hiding the
redirection to >actual behind the helper, so as I said in response
to the v2 series, I am fine without this new helper or an enhanced
test_line_count, but go with more use of test_must_be_empty etc.

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] t: new helper test_line_count_cmd

From: Đoàn Trần Công Danh <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-21 23:52:30

On 2021-06-19 15:50:17+0900, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Indeed, I have no problem seeing this as a new mode of
test_line_count() triggered by an option. In fact, I suggested exactly
that[1] when this idea first arose (except I named the option `-c`
rather than `-e`, but the latter is fine). However, my suggestion was
pretty much shot down[2] (and I don't entirely disagree with [2],
which is why I didn't pursue the idea in [1]).
;-)  

Yeah, I still am skeptical that we'd gain much by hiding the
redirection to >actual behind the helper, so as I said in response
to the v2 series, I am fine without this new helper or an enhanced
test_line_count, but go with more use of test_must_be_empty etc.
I guess the overall feedback for this new helper is negative.
I think the consensus here is a local helper in t640{0,2} for counting
ls-files?

-- 
Danh

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] t: new helper test_line_count_cmd

From: Eric Sunshine <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-22 00:43:36

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 7:52 PM Đoàn Trần Công Danh
[off-list ref] wrote:
On 2021-06-19 15:50:17+0900, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Indeed, I have no problem seeing this as a new mode of
test_line_count() triggered by an option. In fact, I suggested exactly
that[1] when this idea first arose (except I named the option `-c`
rather than `-e`, but the latter is fine). However, my suggestion was
pretty much shot down[2] (and I don't entirely disagree with [2],
which is why I didn't pursue the idea in [1]).
Yeah, I still am skeptical that we'd gain much by hiding the
redirection to >actual behind the helper, so as I said in response
to the v2 series, I am fine without this new helper or an enhanced
test_line_count, but go with more use of test_must_be_empty etc.
I guess the overall feedback for this new helper is negative.
I think the consensus here is a local helper in t640{0,2} for counting
ls-files?
A local specialized function makes sense to me.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help