From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A552C77B78 for ; Wed, 3 May 2023 17:31:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229571AbjECRbp (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2023 13:31:45 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60990 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229678AbjECRbo (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2023 13:31:44 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19E0FBF for ; Wed, 3 May 2023 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-4efd6e26585so6400497e87.1 for ; Wed, 03 May 2023 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683135072; x=1685727072; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=smMHwmYSMyFI8truzw66tQjjXgEWIOwrxGL1ZnXD+F0=; b=NxstQHvxRVotkI6WMRQDgCknSTEnr7hlq8rliadettA2eoJ7pTqTuT4MHTgxic/KT8 bosQ8AdFm7mHka6VRYGmLRCR2V3av2FcZSd0OqfJ7H6VbGMq84pp4AkpvebZkOFOOwMg HZUKCECSqxDubwpMWlGVWM9ztj5KvuNZDYJhQZfEaTTwwhQtzacqDTRZK9O4Tv4k7Q6E AZC96IOGEKNx4CvCfwUqUyS0MhVljS0qdizmkfUPN2qtRrtfN/thlwNgKvr5OHtQta2y m2Pk92wjAtSv+ypVQnUvEAZSvcAaukCznO7xfF9HCp1nTSYJFUz6euq+bW5M+TiDzWsI ExcA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683135072; x=1685727072; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=smMHwmYSMyFI8truzw66tQjjXgEWIOwrxGL1ZnXD+F0=; b=YOiGemyIXv6m3JqhMzu1v4MCUiQXbNWizflk2laHJri3MA3w313CTN1osE/wrd5vX8 3WFAPa7P0r65Z64N+lYJnoenpzYC1tzVjBzXjGRtasfgD9YVnkBO6DknDExKtVGrUwsW tu2wddMQ9ddKZBdJjVr8Nu7pqYqkvjaWAGl0CnnTFlQmsLQmrSPo9ReKdybc7MB51mRC xQ/CahnSVny+BayOjfF3WtyYQCA786r/yK/wxGrh1t9qR9UIQkFRevm/1G2cbjdG/Mbj kHPzSJNIBKp58SPmtl/PCwA4wAxJ6bofLl1wgeshl5UCxxsBLbLDoqlbOXMiLXVhqocZ 4j4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwb/qujrhcETuAO3VoWlXQVMOGY5z3aRblRcG0yyZxXmpTlTiJy Q2awJVlmd8oPwIDxGH3HT9h1iFMcXLA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ78WC6jZ+DwBbphCci6k+1V305MfPyTq9ZhHvL+l2OnBCJOxOa9lWLZpr8hHhONptb14qOiPQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:508b:0:b0:4eb:dd2:f3d2 with SMTP id f11-20020ac2508b000000b004eb0dd2f3d2mr1307043lfm.43.1683135071733; Wed, 03 May 2023 10:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osv.localdomain ([89.175.180.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g6-20020ac25386000000b004edb2cb3500sm6052966lfh.279.2023.05.03.10.31.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 03 May 2023 10:31:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Sergey Organov To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] t4013: add expected failure for "log --patch --no-patch" References: <20230503134118.73504-1-sorganov@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 20:31:10 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 03 May 2023 09:57:15 -0700") Message-ID: <874jote2zl.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Sergey Organov writes: > >> --patch followed by --no-patch is to be a no-op according to the "git >> log" manual page. > > I briefly wondered if it is a bug in the documentation. But it is > clear (at least to me) that "git log -p --stat --no-patch" wants to > show only "--stat", and when "git log -p --raw" shows both patch and > raw, I do not think of a reason why "git log -p --raw --no-patch" > should not behave similarly. > >> Add a test_expected_failure case for the issue. > > That is unsatisfactory, though. Can you back-burner it and send in > a fix with the same test flipping expect_failure to expect_success > instead? No problem from my side, but are you sure? - test_expect_failure []