2009/11/3 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > Erick Mattos <erick.mattos@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> ... I had already sent another patch with the >> suggestions he made in a previous email. > > That happens in real life with people working in different timezones. 6 hours between you and me! >> The new option only touches on getting new author or copying the >> original so that is why I made the first check in whole and the others >> only by author. If people think that this operation is so uncertain, >> then everything should be compared: parent, author and message on all >> tests. > > You probably have misunderstood why we write tests; it is not about making > sure _your_ implementation is Ok. If that were the case, using knowledge > of implementation details to short-circuit the tests would perfectly be > acceptable. > > We write tests so that long after you get bored and stop visiting the git > project mailing-list, if somebody _else_ changes the program and its > behaviour gets changed in a way _you_ did not expect, such a mistake can > be caught, even if you are not monitoring the mailing list to actively > catch such a bad change to go into the system. So we prefer to test both > sides of the coin without saying "this option only affects this codepath > (currently) so it never can break this part, it is not worth checking this > and that (right now)" when it is not too much trouble. It is a win in the > long run. I really did not get the reason before the other guy argued... :-S > In any case, I like --reset-author better than --mine. I didn't think of > diamond-mine, though ;-) > So that's it! Diamond... me neither! :-D I am going to send you another patch in a few minutes. I hope this time will be almost there. Regards -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html