Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 10:27:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> Hmph, it may not be needed, but it should still work, in which case >> >> it probably is still worth testing, even with the optional patch #4. >> > >> > Just because it works, it doesn't mean we have to test it. >> >> Yes. It all depends on the answer to this question > > Not quite, after all this is part of the "git" testsuite and therefore will > only apply if it would be testing git's functionality, and in this case it > does not. It is immaterial if the way how "sudo sudo git" behaves is "git's functionality" or not, because what we care about is what the end user sees as a whole and it does not matter all that much to them where the observed behaviour comes from. The rule is simple. If we care about the behaviour to stay with us over time, we ensure it with a test. If we are certain that no users will depend on such a behaviour and are willing to break them (i.e. users who depend on how "sudo sudo git" behaves, which is an empty set) when we need to update the code, then we don't. And if that changes with and without the optional patch #4, it makes it more important to have test (if we care, that is). Later we may find what patch #4 does is detrimental to user experience and decide to tweak it out (not necessarily with a revert of #4, but doing an equivalent of reverting of it only in the code part and not tests). In any case, as I said in the beginning, this was merely "a bit surprised" and "not a serious enough thing to trigger a reroll", so I will stop wasting our time on this thread. Thanks.
