Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Hi Ævar, On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, Stefan Beller wrote: > > > >>> We had a discussion off list how much of the test suite is in bad >

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Hi Phillip, On Wed, 7 Jun 2017, Phillip Wood wrote: > On 01/06/17 13:56, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 31 May 2017, Phillip Wood wrote: > > > >> From: Phillip Wood > >> > >> Check the console output when using --autostash and the stash applies > >>

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

On 09/06/17 17:39, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Phillip Wood writes: > >> I'm confused by this as my script does not use the escape sequence "\r" >> out of portability concerns. It has a literal carriage return as you get >> from typing Ctrl-Q Ctrl-M in emacs or Ctrl-V

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Phillip Wood writes: > I'm confused by this as my script does not use the escape sequence "\r" > out of portability concerns. It has a literal carriage return as you get > from typing Ctrl-Q Ctrl-M in emacs or Ctrl-V Ctrl-M in bash ... I think the worry is that some

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Stefan Beller wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin >> wrote: >> >> > 3) the only person who could make that call is

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Hi Stefan, On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > > 3) the only person who could make that call is Junio > > Occasionally I think the same, but in fact it is not true. Again my poor English skillz

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Hi Johannes Thanks for your feedback On 01/06/17 13:56, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Phillip, > > On Wed, 31 May 2017, Phillip Wood wrote: > >> From: Phillip Wood >> >> Check the console output when using --autostash and the stash applies >> cleanly is what we

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Jonathan Nieder writes: >> 3) the only person who could make that call is Junio > > I strongly disagree with this. If it helps, I _can_ make any set of declarations to make it sound more official, e.g. (the remainder of) June is the "make sure our tests are ready" month

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: >> >> 4) we still have the problem that there is no cryptography expert among >> those who in the Git project are listened to > > I

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Stefan Beller wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: >> In my mind, it would have made sense to ask well-respected cryptographers >> about their opinions and then try to figure out a consensus among them (as >> opposed to what I saw so

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> Thanks for offering. ;-) > > Undoubtedly my lack of command of the English language is to blame for > this misunderstanding. Sometimes it is best to not be a native speaker, just fluent enough to get by. :)

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Hi, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Johannes Schindelin wrote: >>> Maybe we should call out a specific month (or even a longer period) during >>> which we try to push toward that new hash function, and focus more on >>> those tasks (and on critical bug

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Hi Jonathan, On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, Stefan Beller wrote: > > >> We had a discussion off list how much of the test suite is in bad shape, > >> and "$ git grep ^index" points out a lot of places as well. > > > > Maybe we

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Jonathan Nieder writes: > 2. Hard-coded object ids in tests: As Stefan hinted, many tests beyond >t00* make assumptions about the exact values of object ids. That's >bad for maintainability for other reasons beyond the hash function >transition, too. > >It

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi Dscho, > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, Stefan Beller wrote: > >>> We had a discussion off list how much of the test suite is in bad shape, >>> and "$ git grep ^index" points out a lot of places

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Here's a rough list of some useful tasks, in no particular order: > > 1. bc/object-id: This patch series continues, eliminating assumptions >about the size of object ids by encapsulating them in a struct. >One straightforward way to find code that still needs to

Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Hi Dscho, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, Stefan Beller wrote: >> We had a discussion off list how much of the test suite is in bad shape, >> and "$ git grep ^index" points out a lot of places as well. > > Maybe we should call out a specific month (or even a longer period)

pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Hi, On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > >> Also, about the commit IDs. As long as the tests are consistent (i.e. they > >> use test_commit rather

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> Also, about the commit IDs. As long as the tests are consistent (i.e. they >> use test_commit rather than plain `git commit`, or at least call >> `test_tick`

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Also, about the commit IDs. As long as the tests are consistent (i.e. they > use test_commit rather than plain `git commit`, or at least call > `test_tick` beforehand), the commit IDs should actually be identical > between runs and not

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Hi Phillip, On Wed, 31 May 2017, Phillip Wood wrote: > From: Phillip Wood > > Check the console output when using --autostash and the stash applies > cleanly is what we expect. To avoid this test depending on commit and > stash hashes it uses sed to replace them

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

Phillip Wood writes: > On 31/05/17 11:42, Phillip Wood wrote: >> From: Phillip Wood >> >> Check the console output when using --autostash and the stash applies >> cleanly is what we expect. To avoid this test depending on commit and >>

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

On 31/05/17 11:42, Phillip Wood wrote: From: Phillip Wood Check the console output when using --autostash and the stash applies cleanly is what we expect. To avoid this test depending on commit and stash hashes it uses sed to replace them with XXX. The sed script

[PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

From: Phillip Wood Check the console output when using --autostash and the stash applies cleanly is what we expect. To avoid this test depending on commit and stash hashes it uses sed to replace them with XXX. The sed script also replaces carriage returns in the