Re: [PATCH 3/3] t0000: drop "known breakage" test

2013-12-28 Thread Jeff King
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:51:04PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > I am not _that_ bothered by the "known breakage", but AFAICT there is > > zero benefit to keeping this redundant test. > > Devil's advocate: it ensures that anyone wrapping git's tests (like > the old smoke

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t0000: drop "known breakage" test

2013-12-28 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Jeff King wrote: > I am not _that_ bothered by the "known breakage", but AFAICT there is > zero benefit to keeping this redundant test. Devil's advocate: it ensures that anyone wrapping git's tests (like the old smoketest infrastructure experiment) is able to handle an expected failure. But in p

[PATCH 3/3] t0000: drop "known breakage" test

2013-12-28 Thread Jeff King
Having a simulated "known breakage" test means that the test suite will always tell us there is a bug to be fixed, even though it is only simulated. The right way to test this is in a sub-test, that can also check that we provide the correct exit status and output. Fortunately, we already have suc