Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-05 Thread Jacob Keller
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:58:53PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote: > >> I would prefer the following: >> >> # A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F --> G --> H >> # 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > > Yeah, that is also more

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-05 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:58:53PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote: > >> I would prefer the following: >> >> # A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F --> G --> H >> # 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > > Yeah, that is also more visually pleasing. > > Here's a

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-05 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:58:53PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote: > I would prefer the following: > > # A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F --> G --> H > # 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Yeah, that is also more visually pleasing. Here's a squashable update that uses that and clarifies

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-05 Thread Jakub Narębski
W dniu 04.10.2016 o 22:58, Stefan Beller pisze: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Jeff King wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: >> +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too deep". We start +# the

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Jacob Keller
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 02:43:24PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> > Hmm. Now I am puzzled, because I _did_ line up them specifically to make >> > this clear. I put the numbers under the ">" of the arrow. Did I screw up >> > the

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 02:43:24PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > > Hmm. Now I am puzzled, because I _did_ line up them specifically to make > > this clear. I put the numbers under the ">" of the arrow. Did I screw up > > the spacing somehow so that isn't how they look to you? Or are you just > >

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Jacob Keller
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> >> >> > +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too >> >> >> > deep". We start >> >> >> > +# the depth at 0 and count links, not repositories,

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Jeff King wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > > > >> >> >> > +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too > >> >> >> >

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Stefan Beller
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> >> >> > +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too >> >> >> > deep". We start >> >> >> > +# the depth at 0 and count links, not repositories,

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> >> > +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too > >> >> > deep". We start > >> >> > +# the depth at 0 and count links, not repositories, so in a chain > >> >> > like: > >> >> > +# > >> >> > +# A -> B -> C

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Jacob Keller
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:44:23PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff King wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:57:48PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: >> > >> >> > diff --git

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Jacob Keller
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:57:48PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> > diff --git a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh b/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh >> > index 7bc1c3c..b393613 100755 >> > --- a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh >> > +++

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:44:23PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff King wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:57:48PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > > > >> > diff --git a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh b/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh > >> > index

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-04 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:57:48PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > > diff --git a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh b/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh > > index 7bc1c3c..b393613 100755 > > --- a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh > > +++ b/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh > > @@ -39,6 +39,18 @@ test_expect_success 'preparing

Re: [PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-03 Thread Jacob Keller
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Jeff King wrote: > These tests are just trying to show that we allow recursion > up to a certain depth, but not past it. But the counting is > a bit non-intuitive, and rather than test at the edge of the > breakage, we test "OK" cases in the middle

[PATCH 06/18] t5613: clarify "too deep" recursion tests

2016-10-03 Thread Jeff King
These tests are just trying to show that we allow recursion up to a certain depth, but not past it. But the counting is a bit non-intuitive, and rather than test at the edge of the breakage, we test "OK" cases in the middle of the chain. Let's explain what's going on, and explicitly test the