Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > ... On the other hand, this is kind of an "aspirational test"; I don't > know that the tested functionality has ever worked or that anybody has > ever claimed that it works. So my feeling is that the addition of the > test would feel more natural in the patch series that implements the new > feature. But I don't feel strongly about it. I share your feeling. In the "aspiration followed by realization" pattern, the realization commit shows a change in t/ hierarchy that turns test_expect_failure into test_expect_success and it is likely that what is being tested will fall outside the context. Unless the test title is phrased very well, it would not be obvious from the patch text to the t/ hierarchy alone what behaviour is being corrected when looking at the realization commit. If aspiration and realization are in a same series, that would not be a problem, but it is if the commits that add "aspirational test" and "realization" are too far apart. If it is pretty clear to everybody that another topic to realize the aspiration will be coming in a not so distant future, I think it is fine, though. -- 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