On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:19:10PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Yeah, it's likely we'll need to just match the output of "jgit > > --version". Since their support is hypothetical at this point, I think > > it makes sense to go with your original patch. It does mean we'll later > > have to remove the SHA1 prereq from those tests, but that's OK. It's not > > very many tests, and your commit message clearly explains what is going > > on. > > It's not just removing the SHA-1 prereq, but testing for a new-enough > version. > > This most likely entails adding a new test helper to `t/helper/` that > allows using `versioncmp()` via the command-line, with some clever way to > indicate the different outcomes, and then using that in a new prereq. > > You know, if it was me, I would opt for the simpler (and future-proof) > solution I presented above. But hey, if that complex solution using > `versioncmp()` floats your boat, who am I to stop you. But that was my (and Gábor's) point: it is not future proof, because we don't know whether it is a sufficient test until we actually see a version of JGit with the correct support. Not only that, but your proposed solution relies on having commits in the repository, which is not something that a prereq should be relying on. We may or may not need the version check eventually, but my point is that we should be punting on it until we know what is needed. -Peff
