Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:37:53 +0000
- From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:32:14PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > brian m. carlson wrote: > > > The recent change that introduced autodecorating of refs accidentally > > broke the ability of users to set log.decorate = false to override it. > > Yikes. It sounds to me like we need a test to ensure we don't regress > it again later. I can add one, but it's going to be a bit odd. The issue is that as far as I can tell, the option is honored only if it's the last one read, so it necessarily has to be in the per-repository configuration. I'm not sure it makes that much sense to add a test for this case. Do we generally want to write such tests for all config options? I don't suppose it's that common a mistake to make. Does anyone else have views on whether this is good thing to test for? -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- From: Jonathan Nieder
- Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- From: brian m. carlson
- [PATCH v2] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- From: brian m. carlson
- Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- From: Jonathan Nieder
- Re: [PATCH] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] fixup! log: add exhaustive tests for pattern style options & config
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/log: honor log.decorate
- Index(es):