SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:39:54AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

>> There are two ways to fix an inconsistency, the other way is to fix
>> test_cmp. But that would be a change, and change is not welcome in
>> Git.
> It depends on the change, I suppose.  I agree, changing 3k+ lines just
> to avoid yoda conditions...  I doubt the gain worth the code churn.

Especially when the idiom being changed is not even being made better.

test_cmp_rev follows the same order of arguments a "diff -u" and
produces the same output as plain "git diff".  It's perfectly readable
and normal.  I think Felipe is pushing buttons and testing boundaries.

But in the process came a report of a missing test_cmp_rev use, which
is useful.  Patch follows.

While at it, I rerolled the other patches from the series to clarify
their commit messages (replacing "fix <something>" with a fuller

Improvements welcome, as always.  Thanks.

Felipe Contreras (3):
  rev-parse test: modernize quoting and whitespace
  rev-parse test: use test_must_fail, not "if <command>; then false; fi"
  rev-parse test: use standard test functions for setup

Jonathan Nieder (1):
  rev-parse test: use test_cmp instead of "test" builtin

 t/ | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to