Hi Junio, On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> that has a substring '-S"' in it to ensure that the codepath to > >> parse --gpg-sign= on the command line of "rebase", and to the > >> message we see here are working correctly, without actually checking > >> if GPG is invoked at all, or if it is invoked the key given by the > >> option is correctly passed to the invocation? > > > > Exactly. I want to test --gpg-sign even when there is no gpg executable > > available. > > The other side of that coine is that even when GPG is available, we > do not see if it is invoked correctly at all. That was what I found > disturbing. Okay, I see now. However, is it not better to have even a limited test than none at all? Granted, we still would not know whether rebased commits would be signed properly. But if my trivial test case fails, we would still have a strong indicator that something is broken, with a very convenient way to debug it. And that is what a regression test suite is all about, isn't it? Of course I agree that it would be very nice to have a test at a later stage that does exercise GPG if it is available. But would it really be so terrible to have a (simpler, not as complete) test that is exercised *also* when GPG is *not* available? Ciao, Dscho -- 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