Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: >> For a trivially small change/fix like this, it is OK and even >> preferrable to make 1+2 a single step, as applying t/ part only to >> try to see the breakage (or "am"ing everything and then "diff | >> apply -R" the part outside t/ for the same purpose) is easy enough. > > I disagree. It helps both development and porting to different branches to > be able to cherry-pick the regression test individually. Please do not ask > me to violate this hard-learned principle.
A trivially small change/fix like this, by definition (of "trivial" and "small" ness), it is trivial to develop and port to different branches a single patch, and test with just one half (either the test part or the code-change part) of the change reversed, to ensure that the codebase is broken without the code-change and to demonstrate that the code-change does fix the problem revealed by the test change. And "porting" by cherry-picking a single patch is always easier than two patch series. So you may disagree all you want in your project, but do not make reviewer's lives unnecessarily harder in this project. Thanks.
