Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> The *:* refspec doesn't work, and never has, clarify the code and
>>> documentation to reflect that. This in effect reverts commit 9e7673e
>>> (gitremote-helpers(1): clarify refspec behaviour).
>> [...]
>>> -test_expect_success 'pulling with straight refspec' '
>>> - (cd local2 &&
>>> - GIT_REMOTE_TESTGIT_REFSPEC="*:*" git pull) &&
>>> - compare_refs local2 HEAD server HEAD
>>> -'
>>> -
>>> -test_expect_failure 'pushing with straight refspec' '
>>> - test_when_finished "(cd local2 && git reset --hard origin)" &&
>>> - (cd local2 &&
>>> - echo content >>file &&
>>> - git commit -a -m eleven &&
>>> - GIT_REMOTE_TESTGIT_REFSPEC="*:*" git push) &&
>>> - compare_refs local2 HEAD server HEAD
>>> -'
>>
>> So what's wrong with the tests? Do they fail to test what they claim
>> (how?), test something that wasn't reasonable to begin with, or
>> something entirely different?
>
> Look at the code comment, and look at the now updated documentation
> that assumes that *:* was reasonable. Given the available information,
> it would be reasonable to assume that *:* did work, but it didn't
> work, and it's not really possible to fix it, even if we wanted to, it
> would be a hack. It's better to accept that fact and stop worrying too
> much about what would be the best way to do the wrong thing.
Ok, you say that the *failing* test set an expectation that is
unrealistic, so let's drop it.
But then what about the successful test? Does it actually work (and by
removing the test, you are saying that we don't care if we subsequently
break that (mis)feature)? Or did it test the wrong thing?
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
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