Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stefan Beller wrote:

>>> Nowadays there are better tutorials out there such as "Git from bottom up"
>>> or others, easily found online. Additionally to that a tutorial in our
>>> test suite is not as easy to discover as e.g. online tutorials.
[...]
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com>
>>> ---
>>>  t/t1200-tutorial.sh | 268 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 268 deletions(-)
>>>  delete mode 100755 t/t1200-tutorial.sh
>>
>> Interesting.  When I first saw the diffstat I assumed you were talking
>> about a test that validates the examples in some manpage are correct.
>> But this is not that.
[...]
> 2ae6c70674 (Adapt tutorial to cygwin and add test case, 2005-10-13)
> seemed to imply that it was testing some part for Documentation/tutorial.txt
> though.

Oh, good point.

v1.2.0~121 (New tutorial, 2006-01-22) means that the test is no longer
testing what is in the tutorial in any meaningful sense.  That's why
my search for "git whatchanged -p --root" in manpages didn't find
anything.

So what your patch does still seems reasonable (we have lived fine
without a test validating the examples in that tutorial, and if we
really want a test validating the examples then we should find a way
to automatically extract it), but the description is misleading.

With a corrected description, my Reviewed-by would apply.

Thanks for catching it.

Jonathan

Reply via email to