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 test_expect_failure. -Peff -- 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