Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I think the "tests should document current behavior" is handled by the >> fact that this specific test fails if you revert the name-rev changes >> but keep the test. > > Ah, so this _is_ documenting a new behavior that didn't exist > before the series. That is good to include, then. If it was > "just" testing the behavior before this series, then it would > have less reason to exist. With of without the additional codepath to handle the case where commit graph is available, the original heuristics that is based on commit timestamps are fooled by a history with skewed timestamps. So I thought this "without commit graph, the algorithm must fail this way" test would be testing the current behaviour *and* the behaviour of the new code, no?
