Hi, On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Thomas Rast wrote: > Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > * tr/gcov (Sun Feb 15 23:25:45 2009 +0100) 8 commits > > > - Test git-patch-id > > > - Test rev-list --parents/--children > > > - Test log --decorate > > > - Test fsck a bit harder > > > - Test log --graph > > > - Test diff --dirstat functionality > > > - Test that diff can read from stdin > > > - Support coverage testing with GCC/gcov > > > > Hmmmm... wouldn't it be nice to have more tests? > > I was hoping the coverage patch would give people an incentive to > write some ;-) > > Seriously, the list is huge. Well, judging from your patch-id example, I am somewhat doubtful: the meat of patch-id is exercized in the --cherry-pick patches. IMHO the biggest shortcoming of gcov is that it cannot distinguish between functions that need thorough testing and functions which don't. Don't get me wrong, I do not want to downplay the importance of tr/gcov, I'd like to have it in git.git, but just making tests for all the uncovered functions would just make a full test run longer, for dubitable value. Ciao, Dscho -- 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
