On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:18:50PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > In https://public-inbox.org/git/7vvc8alzat.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > a reasonable patch was made quite a bit less so by changing a test case > demonstrating a bug to a test case that demonstrates that we ask for too > much: the test case 'unsetting the last key in a section removes header' > now expects a future bug fix to be able to determine whether a free-form > comment above a section header refers to said section or not. > > Rather than shooting for the stars (and not even getting off the > ground), let's start shooting for something obtainable and be reasonably > confident that we *can* get it. As I said before, I'm fine with turning this test into something more realistic. An obvious question is whether we should preserve the original unrealistic parts by splitting it: the realistic parts into one expect_failure (that we'd switch to expect_success by the end of this series), and then an unrealistic one to serve as a documentation of the ideal, with a comment explaining why it's unrealistic. I doubt the "unrealistic" half would be serving much purpose though, so I'm OK to see it get eliminated here. -Peff
