On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 2:34 AM Kristoffer Haugsbakk
<code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, at 05:32, Dragan Simic wrote:
> > Fix a bug that allows --rfc and -k options to be specified together when
> > executing "git format-patch". This bug was introduced back in the commit
> > e0d7db7423a9 ("format-patch: --rfc honors what --subject-prefix sets"),
> > about eight months ago, but it has remained undetected so far, presumably
> > because of no associated test coverage.
>
> I don’t think speculating on why the bug is still there improves the
> commit message.
>
> This paragraph could perhaps be rewritten to
>
> “ Fix a bug from e0d7db7423a (format-patch: --rfc honors what
> --subject-prefix sets, 2023-08-30) that allows --rfc and -k options
> to be specified together when executing "git format-patch".
>
> The extra sentence in the original doesn’t really explain anything more
> about the commit. Except the “eight months ago”, but here I’ve used the
> “reference” style (not the Linux-style) which contains the date.
> > @@ -2050,8 +2050,11 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char
> > - if (rfc)
> > + /* Also mark the subject prefix as modified, for later checks */
>
> I think the code speaks for itself in this case.
Apparently we're thinking along the same lines since we both said
essentially the same things in our reviews.
> > +test_expect_success '--rfc and -k cannot be used together' '
> > + test_must_fail git format-patch -1 --stdout --rfc -k >patch
>
> I don’t understand why you redirect to `patch` if you only check the
> exit code. (I don’t expect any stdout since it will fail.)
I had the same question but left it unwritten since I noticed that
this new test is modelled after the test immediately following it in
the script, and the existing test also redirects to "patch"
unnecessarily. So, if it's done this way for consistency with existing
tests, I don't mind letting it slide.
