Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 6:21 PM Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:12 AM Linus Arver via GitGitGadget >>> > <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> > Also I wonder why it was not possible to modify format_trailer_info() >>> > like it is done in this patch before using it to replace >>> > format_trailers(). >>> >>> The artificial organization apparent in this patch was deliberate, in >>> order to make it painfully obvious exactly what was being replaced and >>> how. See https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqjzno13ev.fsf@gitster.g/ >> >> As for the previous patch, I would have thought that it would be >> better not to break the tests. > > I could just squash these patches together to avoid breaking tests (and > also avoid doing the flipping of expect_success to expect_fail and back > again). I don't mind at all which way we go, but now that we have these > patches broken out I wonder if it's better to just keep them that way. > > Junio, do you mind if I squash the relevant changes together into just > one patch? I'd like your input because you requested the current style > (modulo test breakages which was my error). Thanks. When I asked this question, I forgot that the number of test cases that break are around ~50. This is a very large number. So I think it would be cleaner to squash this and the previous patch down to avoid having to flip test_expect_{success,failure} for 50+ individual test cases. For the earlier patch [PATCH v4 10/28] format_trailer_info(): use trailer_item objects there are only 8 failures so I think doing the *_{success,failure} flip is reasonable.
