On Sun, 22 Sep 2013, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2013, Nguyn Thái Ng÷c Duy wrote: > > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nguyn Thái Ng÷c Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> t/t5300-pack-object.sh | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > [...] > > > > This, in combination with patch 10/17, is making the test suite to test > > either packv4 or non packv4, and never both. I think this is not a good > > approach. > > > > Instead we should have packv2 specific tests to enforce --pack-version=2 > > when using pack-objects and create a duplicate of those tests for > > --pack-version=4 when that makes sense. For tests that are mostly > > common, the test could be factored out into a function with a pack > > version argument. Then, most tests could be always run twice: once for > > packv2 and again for packv4. Not doing so makes it more risky to > > regress packv2 when testing improvements to packv4 support. > > I agree. I wanted to split this (and maybe other t53xx) for v4-only > tests and update the existing t53xx to test on v2 only. For now I > think this will do as it will allow us to verify that v4 code works > (just need to run the test suite twice, with and without --packv4). OK. I've queued those patches at the end of the series so they're easily replaceable. Nicolas