Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > So, should I prepare a series like: > > 1: test case and mark known fail > 2: the 1 line fix > 3: mark test pass > > Or should 2+3 be squashed into one? If "git mv" already has its own sets of tests with a good coverage, please strive to add a case that covers your fix to an existing script. Then step #1 above would be a patch to add a few "test_expect_failure" tests to an existing file, and step #3 would be a patch to flip expect_failure to expect_success. And in such a case, for a single liner, all three can be squashed in to a single patch. It would show what changed in the code and have a few new test_expect_success tests added to the test suite, and it would be obvious to anybody who looks at such a change 6 months down the road that the test cases added by the patch are the cases that did not work without the changes to the code. It never makes sense to separate steps #2 and #3 for any fix. If "git mv" did not have adequate test coverage, then please add a test script with both expect_success (for cases that should have been there when somebody worked on "git mv" originally), and expect_failure to expose the bug you found in your first patch. Again, the second patch would update the code and flip expect_failure to expect_success. I see there is t7001-mv and even though it claims to concentrate on its operation from subdirectory, it has tests for more basic modes of the operation. So my recommendation would be to have a single patch that: (1) retitles t7001; (2) adds your new -k tests to it; and (3) adds the 1-liner fix. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
