From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61910AD48 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:48:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713354506; cv=none; b=hJms07lut3EonF/LWmrDzaQzqAbtOExM8+SdulhY04gaI45n3lzaBlwPVhP/1vq21/Jp3Pb+2Hqy/Ka2/ylj6v2mqUlWuDn+cavySMrl2ZA8JbOK/fDnCdTmxs4ieDic4aIptIaKNFV2m/m8J8URbiWGVRN1ECxbKpj+gPL2170= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713354506; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uR/LrW1/3Aa2hkENiK96crJW99VRejWfsniUMzpeDPA=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=RR37Dj6LsRCEDQv/Jp+Nek4LEJYe3vX2FXJS4klBrzBwkH3fkKmBvAlJ8av8OW3nh9cB4NBzsD4NIP4KlMpebHqvUEPptASJ+FrEHlGiWjee3OAHv44mAxEvqkLyvPtEELkQ4J65wOk29NiXxI5ZUMS69RRggJpKmlT4rJUGktU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=i/t27G+Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="i/t27G+Z" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1713354502; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QBhim2pO5Iy/u78ic4EIcOoxLHihfqDL+YD7tWNx8sw=; b=i/t27G+ZYs1v6e3FD+mjNgZRlwlz8H7kWJOe7515eK62gd/eMdEuvWUNh3W0OQo0+8+l9e aFkqeLAr/tviJbkmhf+nphRJ7nsnf/OvrbtUd7CQvzxUVH9O5ZJCTl784VoqlPkbJDpDp+ NrOhaxflYmwSpBJx926Vf5lIHm4f2mwKyI7ifn3OlTyosa+GmM/LxVmWuDXKHh2mIuLaLY 4oR3FcLX69fL6qnTZB4yogTezdz/yygTvqyZNJejGYHCVPyUxY4F5gGjxhhDursEUJNHXs KpQICFwTDgZFf8lyNPhx+ANhxVuLO3ynSLCV/6f4YFc99KWY9rbGlWPAq+oZmg== Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:48:22 +0200 From: Dragan Simic To: Kristoffer Haugsbakk Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] format-patch: fix a bug in option exclusivity and add a test to t4014 In-Reply-To: <675e2dec-a80e-4b5d-84ab-75ec5604a1be@app.fastmail.com> References: <9a6a9cb1d9dd07bbbbc47616c510779a@manjaro.org> <675e2dec-a80e-4b5d-84ab-75ec5604a1be@app.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <0ade0ce2348ab24617e19bc60e648b64@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org On 2024-04-17 13:38, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, at 09:11, Dragan Simic wrote: >>> I had the same question but left it unwritten since I noticed that >>> this new test is modelled after the test immediately following it in >>> the script, and the existing test also redirects to "patch" >>> unnecessarily. So, if it's done this way for consistency with >>> existing >>> tests, I don't mind letting it slide. >> >> Yes, I also wasn't super happy with this new test, as I already noted >> in one of my replies, but improving this and the other similar tests >> is most probably something best left for a follow-up series. > > I don’t see the point in writing the test in mimic-neighbors way only > to > improve it shortly after. Well, the logic is quite simple: let me get this patch accepted, and we'll deal with the improvements later. Though, don't get me wrong, I'd always prefer to see things done the right way, but the time, just like the other resources, is limited. > If the test can be written in a better way then the other tests can be > improved later. Or now. I think I’ve seen other discussions were a less > good pattern wasn’t accepted in new tests even though they were used in > existing ones. The reviewer then pointed out that the other tests > should > be updated later. > > That’s just my opinion and recollection. I see, but this makes me wonder how often the other tests actually get improved later?