On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:59:45PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > One test needs to be updated, because it actually corrupts a
> > pack and expects that re-packing the corrupted bytes will
> > use the same name. It won't anymore, but we can easily just
> > use the name that pack-objects hands back.
> Re-reading the tests in that script, I am not sure if keeping these
> tests is even a sane thing to do, by the way.  It "expects" that
> certain breakages are propagated, and anybody who breaks that
> expectation by improving pack-objects etc. to catch such breakages
> will be yelled at by breaking the test that used to pass.

I had a similar thought, but I figured I would leave it for the person
who _does_ make that change. The yelling will be a good signal that
they've got it right, and they can clean up the test (either by dropping
it, or modifying it to check the right thing) at that point.

> Seeing that the way the test scripts are line-wrapped follows the
> ancient convention, I suspect that this may be because it predates
> our more recent best practice to document known breakages with
> test_expect_failure.

I read it more as "make sure that the v1 index breaks, so when we are
testing v2 we know it is not an accident that we notice the breakage".

But I also see your reason, and I think it would be fine to use

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