Lessley Dennington <lessleydennington@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 11/23/21 3:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Lessley Dennington via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> >> writes: >> >>> From: Lessley Dennington <lessleydennington@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Move repo setup to occur after git directory is set up. This will ensure >>> enabling the sparse index for `diff` (and guarding against the nongit >>> scenario) will not cause tests to start failing, since that change will include >>> adding a check to prepare_repo_settings() with the new BUG. >> This looks obviously the right thing to do. Would anything break >> because of the "wrong" ordering of events in the original code? >> IOW, can this "bugfix" be protected with a new test against >> regression? >> > Yep! Tests 2, 3, 28, and 34 in t1092-sparse-checkout-compatibility.sh > will fail without this change. I do not understand. When 1/4 and 2/4 are applied, no tests in t1092 fail for me. I think the presentation order of this series is not reviewer friendly; "the new BUG" is introduced in a separate step and obscures the reason why this step is needed. It is better than adding "the new BUG" first and let some tests fail and then fix the breakage the series caused in later steps, though.
