On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:51 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 12:25:31AM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: > > Makes sense. Also, I'm kind of cat-one-the-wall about whether it makes sense > > to have two projects about the unit test migration effort itself. If we're > > clear that both of them would not overlap, it should be fine. Otherwise, it > > would be better to merge them as Patrick suggests. > > I don't quite mind either way. I think overall we have enough tests that > can be converted even if both projects got picked up separately. And the > reftable unit tests are a bit more involved than the other tests given > that their coding style doesn't fit at all into the Git project. So it's > not like they can just be copied over, they definitely need some special > care. > > Also, the technical complexity of the "reftable" backend is rather high, > which is another hurdle to take. > > Which overall makes me lean more towards keeping this as a separate > project now that I think about it. Ok, for me. If we have a contributor working on each of these 2 projects, we just need to be clear that the contributors should not work together on the 2 projects as I think the GSoC forbids that. > > That said, how helpful would it be to link the following doc in the unit > > testing related ideas? > > > > https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/technical/unit-tests.txt > > Makes sense to me. To me too. > > Would it worth linking the reftable technical doc for the above ideas? > > > > https://git-scm.com/docs/reftable > > > > I could see it goes into a lot of detail. I'm just wondering if link to it > > would help someone who's looking to learn about reftable. > > Definitely doesn't hurt. I agree. Thanks!
