On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Nicolas Pitre <n...@fluxnic.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013, Nguy­n Thái Ng÷c Duy wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Nguy­n Thái Ng÷c Duy <pclo...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  t/t5300-pack-object.sh | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> [...]
> This, in combination with patch 10/17, is making the test suite to test
> either packv4 or non packv4, and never both.  I think this is not a good
> approach.
> Instead we should have packv2 specific tests to enforce --pack-version=2
> when using pack-objects and create a duplicate of those tests for
> --pack-version=4 when that makes sense.  For tests that are mostly
> common, the test could be factored out into a function with a pack
> version argument.  Then, most tests could be always run twice: once for
> packv2 and again for packv4.  Not doing so makes it more risky to
> regress packv2 when testing improvements to packv4 support.

I agree. I wanted to split this (and maybe other t53xx) for v4-only
tests and update the existing t53xx to test on v2 only. For now I
think this will do as it will allow us to verify that v4 code works
(just need to run the test suite twice, with and without --packv4).
I'll add more v4 tests that run without --packv4. 10/17 should remain
in the end though to exercise v4 a lot more (some v4 bugs were found
not by t53xx), until we finally switch the default to v4.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to