Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > In this case I think neither is churn. I needed to clean up the earlier > part of the test script so that my later tests didn't break, and Ævar > touched the same area to cover more cases in those tests. > ... > One other possible thing to do during the resolution is combine the > cleanup of both objects in a single test (since in Ævar's series, both > objects are created together). That is what makes it a churn X-<. More coverage does not have to be tied to turning a sequence of tests into a loop, moving things around, etc. Just adding more of similar things wouldn't have caused such a clash with a possible mismerge. But I need to point out that it is recognised as a churn only when there is an unfortunate topic that wants to touch the overlapping area at the same time. If there isn't, such a change would be seen as a valuable preliminary clean-up ;-) So, of course, it depends on luck.
