Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2021, #03; Tue, 13)

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 9:07 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

* sm/worktree-add-lock (2021-07-12) 3 commits
 - worktree: teach `add` to accept --reason <string> with --lock
 - worktree: mark lock strings with `_()` for translation
 - t2400: clean up '"add" worktree with lock' test

 "git worktree add --lock" learned to record why the worktree is
 locked with a custom message.

 Ready?

I think this series is ready and gave my Reviewed-by: here[1]. One of
the new tests contains an unnecessary but harmless `test -f`[2], but
it's such a minor nit that I doubt it's worth demanding a re-roll.

I think having "test -f" is the right thing to do, so [2] is
probably OK as-is.  test_cmp may want to complain about a possible
bug in the test when given a missing file.  I do agree with you that
the unquoted "why not" is a bit problematic from the readability's
point of view but I agree it is not too huge a deal.

Let me "rebase -i"-in your Reviewed-by: before merging it down to
'next'.

Thanks.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cSVsJ9AtAMqtRQpyuosCDCGi+mu2C1PJUK49WTb5KvcWQ@mail.gmail.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cQVSUg1aqry_hMydJ=Uo=-VhOog6TUTpG=0on0LUcw8Dg@mail.gmail.com/

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:30 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I think this series is ready and gave my Reviewed-by: here[1]. One of
the new tests contains an unnecessary but harmless `test -f`[2], but
it's such a minor nit that I doubt it's worth demanding a re-roll.

I think having "test -f" is the right thing to do, so [2] is
probably OK as-is.  test_cmp may want to complain about a possible
bug in the test when given a missing file.  [...]

We tried relatively recently to have test_cmp() complain about a
missing file[1], but both Ævar[2] and Peff[3] ran into problems in
which tests (presumably) legitimately called test_cmp() on missing
files, so the suggestion was made to revert the check[4], which is
indeed what happened[5].

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200809174209.15466-1-sunshine@sunshineco.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200921104000.2304-15-avarab@gmail.com/
[3]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20201016001704.GA2937048@coredump.intra.peff.net/
[4]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cSU=1GcQuqZab+0Vff_A-JmD59wEc3RMr3wDojpgRYUuw@mail.gmail.com/
[5]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqv9f9ao0v.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com/