From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B535153361 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:45:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712767533; cv=none; b=Bxw97Hz904Z8NmOt+w9eQewHctZ48fnGTp8fSqgtSY91SOxocpLl+a3ElCyjHlieY++qrzqY+dgYdefAdbW/SFXpHXFHFo7SOHxk91Z7xLJR0CImUK/Je/0XvO5ov4Tg6EPGWsoU4T8V0PAmcbKcNhNAuGQjcUmnHm/xwPV5Xz4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712767533; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DCU9kKomYOprjC9dfw+7NytlYfikqQp2j1NgaY4jYX8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=k1WGFEGyIRHe6BO3BcwfkU6gSsc62RUQVecYfC61cKCIMDiXmuQ7aaCVamNiDbZk2wATXV1+qnnXheJ0NGjXeY8EqN2cofANSUBI6Cvrb/WIxa5pgzWHpy9T0QXz+LPgFkhO2A46sqJfnAPkf/tho8/SqdcDC+MFlY+eBNIKPNo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=gJlTXuuN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="gJlTXuuN" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D082F7A5; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:45:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=DCU9kKomYOprjC9dfw+7NytlYfikqQp2j1NgaY 4jYX8=; b=gJlTXuuNdJ3ZSPtqAyrAjgOD5MB3XBhGL6GdzaHlp8XlQ+nWwd+e29 N9C/dVrmuroAx4r57qwG5UogpfPUAs2BWcTnhsRrc/FP1Jf8Mw2COPaOMF8WzPT5 gxyfgxZa7Z/F4HtMsP2IMDny57MzSA19UZ5FkeV2/P/GtM4aaG6rM= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2032A2F7A4; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:45:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.229.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D9532F7A3; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:45:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: phillip.wood123@gmail.com Cc: Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] t3428: restore coverage for "apply" backend In-Reply-To: <5e0ec9eb-2e2c-4cb6-91e2-eef6b5c4300c@gmail.com> (phillip's message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:23:55 +0100") References: <6ab115bf-7b78-4633-a64c-9a0925d68e3f@gmail.com> <5e0ec9eb-2e2c-4cb6-91e2-eef6b5c4300c@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:45:23 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BAA7066A-F759-11EE-9939-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com phillip.wood123@gmail.com writes: > On 10/04/2024 15:22, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> phillip.wood123@gmail.com writes: >> >>>> Hmph, doesn't this lose coverage for the merge backend, though? >>> >>> I don't think so, we had coverage for the merge backend from the other >>> tests before 2ac0d6273f as all of the other tests in this file use the >>> merge backend. We're no longer testing "--signoff" without specifying >>> some other option that selects a backend but it seems unlikely that we >>> could break that without breaking one of the other tests. >> OK, so we have "rebase --merge --signoff" tested elsewhere and we >> are replacing "rebase --signoff" with "rebase --apply --signoff"? > > Exactly Perhaps we can write that in the log message to help the next person who reads the patch? Something like... t3428: restore coverage for "apply" backend This test file assumes the "apply" backend is the default which is not the case since 2ac0d6273f (rebase: change the default backend from "am" to "merge", 2020-02-15). The way "merge" backend honors "--signoff" is already tested elsewhere, so make sure the "apply" backend is tested by specifying it explicitly. Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano