On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 03:04:57PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > Let's consider the "verbose" function a failed experiment and remove the > last few callers (which are all many years old, and have been dwindling > as we remove them from scripts we touch for other reasons). It will be > one less thing for new test writers to see and wonder if they should be > using themselves. Well put. > I think this should be all calls. Most tests will fail after removing > the function, of course, but it's possible one could be hiding in an > expect_failure or something. I didn't see any after grepping for > '[^-]verbose' in t/, which is not too long to look through. > > t/t0020-crlf.sh | 38 +++++++++++++++++++------------------- > t/t1301-shared-repo.sh | 4 ++-- > t/t3427-rebase-subtree.sh | 12 ++++++------ > t/t4022-diff-rewrite.sh | 2 +- > t/t4062-diff-pickaxe.sh | 2 +- > t/t5304-prune.sh | 16 ++++++++-------- > t/t6006-rev-list-format.sh | 2 +- > t/t6501-freshen-objects.sh | 2 +- > t/t7001-mv.sh | 2 +- > t/t7300-clean.sh | 4 ++-- > t/t9902-completion.sh | 30 +++++++++++++++--------------- > t/test-lib-functions.sh | 9 --------- > 12 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) I applied these myself and grepped around myself, and also could not find any stragglers. So I'd be happy to drop the implementation of verbose() in this series, too, to avoid the appearance of it continuing to be a blessed path. Thanks, Taylor
