Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> There are two perf scripts numbered p5600, but with otherwise different
> names ("clone-reference" versus "partial-clone"). We store timing
> results in files named after the whole script, so internally we don't
> get confused between the two. But "aggregate.perl" just prints the test
> number for each result, giving multiple entries for "5600.3". It also
> makes it impossible to skip one test but not the other with
> GIT_SKIP_TESTS.
>
> Let's renumber the one that appeared later (by date -- the source of the
> problem is that the two were developed on independent branches). For the
> non-perf test suite, our test-lint rule would have complained about this
> when the two were merged, but t/perf never learned that trick.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> This is meant for 2.23, but obviously it's not hurting anything if it
> doesn't make the cut. I double-checked that there is no conflict with
> anything on pu, either. :)
Thanks for being careful. Will apply.
> t/perf/{p5600-clone-reference.sh => p5601-clone-reference.sh} | 0
> 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> rename t/perf/{p5600-clone-reference.sh => p5601-clone-reference.sh} (100%)
>
> diff --git a/t/perf/p5600-clone-reference.sh b/t/perf/p5601-clone-reference.sh
> similarity index 100%
> rename from t/perf/p5600-clone-reference.sh
> rename to t/perf/p5601-clone-reference.sh
By the way, do we feel differently (e.g. more risky) when we see
100% rename without the "index old-oid..new-oid mode" lines and when
we see 99% rename with one, with a one-line change?
