Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> I'll mark it as "wait for follow-up fix" in whats-cooking.txt (on >> 'todo' branch) to remind myself not to merge it yet. > > May I request your guidance as to your preference how to proceed? > ... I guess I didn't see this before I sent my response to the review thread, which was in my pile of "these need more thought than others before responding" topics. > Here are the options I see: > > A) remove the tests in question > > B) mark them as !MINGW instead > > C) change just those two tests from using `$PWD` (pseudo-Unix path) to > `$(pwd)` (native path) > > I would like to hear your feedback about your preference, but not without > priming you a little bit by detailing my current opinion on the matter: > > While I think B) would be the easiest to read, C) would document the > expected behavior better. A) would feel to me like shrugging, i.e. the > lazy, wrong thing to do. > > What do you think? As to my preference on tests, I guess what I suggested was a cross between your B and C below, and I can go with either one as an abbreviated version of my preference ;-) I am still wondering if the test is expecting the right behaviour, though. If some codepaths rely on a question "please resolve '../.' relative to 'path/to/dir/.'" being answered as "that's path/to/dir itself", it smells to me that the downstream of the dataflow that expects such an answer, as well as the machinery that produces such an answer, are acting as two wrongs that happen to cancel each other. Am I grossly misunderstanding what that test is doing?