Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> - diffstat with -I<regex>, > > I am not worried about that, either, as `diffstat` consumes `xdiff`'s > output, therefore if one consumer works, another consumer will work, too. Careful. Such a "we know what happens in the code" transparent-box testing attitude is laying a minefield for later our selves. As we learned in a recent bug in sequencer, some corners of implementation do the same thing in different codepaths as optimization. The really bad part of the story is that such an implementation detail can and will change over time, since that is the kind of thing we do when optimizing code. In other words, we only know what happens in the current code. And automated tests protect us from the future, when done right. If written with too intimate knowledge of how the current code works, well, what are we really testing? It's a balancing act and there is no single "right" answer, but I'd draw the line on a bit more careful side than you are drawing here. Thanks.
