Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The first thing I said in this thread is "Thanks. This fix looks good to > me.". I'd be happy to have just this fix in. This patch resolves a > blocked of an earlier series of mine. > > The rest of the feedback here (aside from the trivial "rm -rf" fix) was > an attempt to bridge the gap between this & my earlier look in [1]. > > > And I think I'd say the same thing even if I saw your tests as being > > much more closely related to what Jonathan was checking. > > > > That's my $0.02 on "why not?". The story totally changes if you want > > to submit these tests separate from Jonathan's series. If that's the > > scenario, then I fully agree with you on "it's cheap to add more test > > coverage so why not include it?" > > Sure, or maybe he'd be interested, or not. I'd rather try to suggest > some small proposed changes than submit a patch of my own as an initial > approach. If my patch is OK going in on its own, I'd rather do that, and leave additional changes to other patch sets.
