Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Likewise. The series looks good so far.
