On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> In patch 2/3 and 3/3, there are many tests which requires a branch
>>> similar to that of "signed" branch, i.e. a branch with a commit having
>>> GPG signature. So previously in v2, I created two new branches,
>>> "test_sign" and "no_sign", which are identical to that of "signed"
>>> branch. And with these branches, I wrote the tests in patch 2/3
>>> and 3/3.
>>>
>>> As suggested by Eric [1], rather than creating new branches, I
>>> can take advantage of "signed" branch which already exists.
>>
>> Yeah, I understand that part. But you do not _need_ to do the split
>> you do in 1/3 in order to reuse "signed".
>
> If it's fine, then I think it would be OK to drop this 1/3. Without splitting
> the 'log --graph --show-signature' in two test will also serve the
> purpose for the new test to use the signed branch.
My understanding of Junio's response is that the missing PGP
prerequisite along with a weak commit message make for poor
justification of patch 1/3, however, if you add the prerequisite and
use the commit message he proposed (reproduced below) then it becomes
sensible to retain 1/3.
--->8---
In 2/3 and 3/3, we will use the same 'signed' branch that the
first test for 'log --graph --show-signature' uses. This branch
is currently created in that 'log --graph --show-signature' test
itself.
Split the set-up part into a test of its own, and make the
existing first test into a separate one that only inspects the
history on the 'signed' branch. That way, it would become
clearer that later tests added by 2/3 and 3/3 reuse the 'signed'
branch in the same way this 'log --graph --show-signature' uses
that same branch.
--->8---
--
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