Alexandr Miloslavskiy <alexandr.miloslavskiy@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 07.01.2020 22:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> With the third step the series won't merge cleanly with other topic >> you have in 'next' (t7107 gets somewhat heavy merge conflicts). >> >> I'll queue the first two for now but let's clean them up post 2.25 >> release. > > OK, I will re-submit the remaining patch after 2.25. > > I will implement the next --pathspec-from-file patches as if this > third patch was accepted (that is, without copy&pasted tests). I am not sure if that is a good idea. I'd rather see the planned new changes not to be taken hostage of the third step. Besides, with the third step, your preference is not to test the behaviour of end-user facing commands that would learn the option at all and only test the underlying machinery with test-tool tests, no? If you are not adding tests for the higher-level end-user facing commands as part of these new series, would it make a difference if the codebase has the third step applied (i.e. missing tests for the end-user facing commands that have already learned the option) or not (i.e. the commands that have already learned the option are still tested end-to-end)?
