On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> +test_expect_success 'status does not verbose without --verbose' ' >>> + git status >actual && >>> + ! grep "^diff --git" actual >>> +' >> >> But what is this test checking? > > status is also a consumer of the verbose whose initial value is set to > -1. This makes it include verbose in status output. This bug was fixed > by explicitly initializing verbose to 0 if -1. SZEDER pointed out a > bug[1] which broke some tests in and then when I fixed it, you > requested me to include tests even in this patch[2] which I found > convincing enough. > > [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/289730 > [2]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/289993 Okay, makes sense, but it's not at all obvious from the context of this patch or its commit message. It probably would have been clearer had the two git-status tests been added in a separate preparatory test with a commit message explaining that the tests are to ensure that a subsequent patch (adding commit.verbose) won't break the existing behavior of git-status. Having a separate commit explaining that would also help future readers of the test script who wonder what this test is doing (since it's not obvious and it's not explained by the current commit message) when they use git-blame to try to figure out its purpose. If you do re-roll, you might consider breaking them out to a new patch or, at the very least, document their purpose in the commit message of this patch. -- 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