On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 09:57:59AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > So I think this is as likely to cause somebody a headache due to a dumb > > portability problem or random bitrot as it is to actually find a bug. I > > guess test-extra wouldn't be run by default, but only via CI, so maybe > > that limits the blast radius sufficiently. > > Yeah, that is the exact thought I had when I did it. Anybody who is > not aware of test target other than 'test' will not be hurt, and we > explicitly make the CI aware of 'test-all' to trigger it. But as > long as somebody bothered to write the tests, exercising them to > reveal bitrot-bugs either in the tested contrib stuff or the tests > themselves to be fixed or removed would be a good thing to do. I'm don't have strong feelings on it either way. But if we think those tests are worth running in CI, then... > So I am tempted to do > > test-extra: all > $(MAKE) -C contrib/credential/netrc test > $(MAKE) -C contrib/diff-highlight test > : $(MAKE) -C contrib/mw-to-git test > $(MAKE) -C contrib/subtree test ...we'd probably want to keep running mw-to-git tests, and teach one of the CI environments to install the appropriate perl modules to avoid skipping them. -Peff
