On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:54:33PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > I totally believe you that some of the variations that I listed in my > commentary don't work in the git context. I'm not a prove expert; I > just noticed that removing the .prove file is counterproductive and > breaks some other prove features. I also agree with you that it > would be dangerous to encourage partial testing and that it is > therefore not a priority to make the use case that you mentioned work > in the git context. > > I still think my patch makes sense. The error that Peff pointed out > was in my commentary, not in the patch itself or in the log message. > Junio, is there something else keeping you from applying this patch? Yeah, I hope my comments weren't interpreted as "don't apply this". Keeping the .prove file around is a prerequisite for lots of clever things, including some useful (--state=slow) and some less so (--state=failed). But if the latter case does not work (if we even want it to), it is because this patch is only the first building block. We should definitely apply it. -Peff -- 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