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 7F320C77B78 for ; Thu, 4 May 2023 15:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230416AbjEDPub (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2023 11:50:31 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60394 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230011AbjEDPu2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2023 11:50:28 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 191161FD9 for ; Thu, 4 May 2023 08:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-24e1d272b09so553489a91.1 for ; Thu, 04 May 2023 08:50:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683215427; x=1685807427; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=WtXszEfa+eyMpVr2U3oskChTavrgzbkhFpTEdsvG8hQ=; b=SeZPDlTVnJN4b5eVm9oLNFDeePQSSMgarAHrREuxOPqy8C4AZBL9I87xq87WdThRqt AO1M9KAqgV9LOkBKYCpIPyRpCdIAr+yOyH/GjQN/KBuCwkCpEWdHiR3FwaQR7iSn1R51 IdP1fYyr3X041IKKFtIRKRe4fiatmWLcebyE7jijK7DqwuC7Lq1O/wJCXs8rjYUgP5y2 xslL2/xI/Di8avPenp7FkpbD4UVWb5e1Jy4Hg9uU/vdAg48slpT01OW3g8vmGoYRbLRf MX+4KqO5hM5Pngm2v85v3sMV00VUVoJETmxP0Y0oLQgV/5NTFOg6hUsRZZ52Tq7UvfNk /MGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683215427; x=1685807427; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WtXszEfa+eyMpVr2U3oskChTavrgzbkhFpTEdsvG8hQ=; b=fFztkir+m5/Ojqcsqgdje4iXQtrlgZQxyZp6c1TEZXPh46d4FCQFPxSyy2MIV7wVxF 9yPsUAesyYXDdPWoPF6VaDyphsdknVi/tEYmXAWuanm8ofklzGXF2Rdv/mrm58HHsVYd L1Ya03LdIR3X45dqzcVB3t7UJ009pKiunZl9WXZDNtFFW9Ow36WKTTObrxrA+1kLnL2W 3/DfcvNDTtPoGdpT/eBUwFe/D+XPdWlVewmmzQnoCm53d/EOWcQ6J9nFuaMcfL1R6N/o EJ3VnFZhns0t2NUXrLLqOVlriBUN+C2BcfkfjLuXHE0X7R/edjL4BHiL3THZG2B14nYz ORUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDy1jLpwBSSzkATUREZlJYGwUq4JvMNC2rCCwR9i5RYve8lbaPaH vKWIFlPWkvN7ReWXq6l6S14= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4c/vVZpoVKsKaHndy9oC6R+WlIO0eVlVPfmCwuFgj7Rm2KgXIubXrueBasCs9JoEnP0RrRnA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:fd81:b0:24e:3206:7ca9 with SMTP id cx1-20020a17090afd8100b0024e32067ca9mr2613398pjb.46.1683215427479; Thu, 04 May 2023 08:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (187.137.203.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.203.137.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o15-20020a17090ac08f00b0024b79a69361sm3277939pjs.32.2023.05.04.08.50.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 04 May 2023 08:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Sergey Organov Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] t4013: add expected failure for "log --patch --no-patch" References: <20230503134118.73504-1-sorganov@gmail.com> <874jote2zl.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 08:50:26 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 03 May 2023 11:07:20 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (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: > >> No problem from my side, but are you sure? > > Absolutely. > > I've seen people just say "we document a failed one" and leave it at > that, without attempting to fix. I am trying to see if pushing back > at first would serve as a good way to encourage these known failure > to be fixed, without accumulating too many expect_failure in our > test suite, which will waste cycles at CI runs (which do not need to > be reminded something is known to be broken). I will try not to do > this when I do not positively know the author of such a patch is > capable enough to provide a fix, though, and you are unlucky enough > to have shown your abilities in the past ;-) I ended up spending some time digging history and remembered that "--no-patch" was added as a synonym to "-s" by d09cd15d (diff: allow --no-patch as synonym for -s, 2013-07-16). These git diff -p --stat --no-patch HEAD^ HEAD git diff -p --raw --no-patch HEAD^ HEAD would show no output from the diff machinery, patches, diffstats, raw object names, etc. And this turns out to be a prime example why the approach to ask contributors do more, would help the project overall. What I should have done, instead of asking for the test with its expect_failure turned into expect_success *and* a fix to the code to make the new test work, was to ask to see if it is really a bug in the behaviour or if the documentation is wrong. Then your reaction wouldn't have been "are you sure?". It hopefully would have been "ah, the intent is not documented correctly, and here is a documentation patch to fix it." When a command does not behave the way one thinks it should, being curious is good. Reporting it as a potential bug is also good. But it would help the project more if it was triaged before reporting it as a potential bug, if the reporter is capable of doing so. Those who encounter behaviour unexpected to them are more numerous than those who can report it as a potential bug (many people are not equipped to write a good bug report), and those who can triage and diagnose a bug report are fewer. Those who can come up with a solution is even more scarse. Thanks.