Hi Junio, On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > 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? > > What I would expect is "In the ideal world, we may want both, and in an > imperfect world in which we can have only one, we'd rather have the > 'even though we can run it only when GPG is available, we make sure that > we drive GPG correctly' one, dropping the other.", simply because the > end result matters more, not how the instruction to the end user is > phrased. > > Sure, in even less perfect world, having a superficial test might be > better than nothing, but reminding ourselves to aim high (and make sure > we document the decision when we punt) is an important part of the > purpose of the review process, so... Okay, so here is the deal: on the development machine where this was developed, I do not have gpg installed. So please take this test case just to make sure that things work as intended for the moment. Before sending the last rebase--helper patch series, I will make sure to add a real test that requires gpg, and submit that, too. Deal? 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