On Sun, 22 Sep 2013, Duy Nguyen wrote:

> 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).

OK.

I've queued those patches at the end of the series so they're easily 
replaceable.


Nicolas

Reply via email to