From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A555431FD0 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jNtGdFvGdXy3 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-8.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.37]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD56431FB6 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 12074425-b7bf1ae000000a2a-ab-4e6a4d9d5c48 Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 89.EC.02602.D9D4A6E4; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:32:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id p89HXA4t023168; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:33:10 -0400 Received: from awakening.csail.mit.edu (awakening.csail.mit.edu [18.26.4.91]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as amdragon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id p89HX7JB016775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amthrax by awakening.csail.mit.edu with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R24zK-00066c-0h; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:35:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:35:37 -0400 From: Austin Clements To: Thomas Schwinge Subject: Re: [PATCH] notmuch restore --accumulate Message-ID: <20110909173537.GU5688@mit.edu> References: <1315249637-20179-1-git-send-email-thomas@schwinge.name> <87liu2kcq6.fsf@servo.factory.finestructure.net> <20110909090633.GA3178@localdomain> <87fwk63v86.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <87fwk53a1i.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fwk53a1i.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrIKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nojvXN8vP4FSPtMWefV4W51tesVhc vzmT2aLx1WdGBxaPu+vWsXvcPc3l8WzVLWaPd3unswSwRHHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlfJg7naWg i73i6a1+lgbGs6xdjJwcEgImEm/alzBD2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEtjHKPF2+mNGkISQwHpGiYa9 BRD2CSaJzw90IewljBKfH3uC2CwCKhJbfh8AG8QmoCGxbf9ysF4RAS2JOau/gg1lFmhhlOhe u5MFJCEsYCgxd9lKdhCbV0Bb4umkt8wQmw8wSTR1nmCBSAhKnJz5BMxmBpp0499Lpi5GDiBb WmL5Pw6QMKeAhUTvj79MILYo0BHX9rezTWAUmoWkexaS7lkI3QsYmVcxyqbkVunmJmbmFKcm 6xYnJ+blpRbpWujlZpbopaaUbmIEh76L6g7GCYeUDjEKcDAq8fCuMM3yE2JNLCuuzD3EKMnB pCTKq+oFFOJLyk+pzEgszogvKs1JLT7EKMHBrCTCGycBlONNSaysSi3Kh0lJc7AoifO+3uHg JySQnliSmp2aWpBaBJOV4eBQkuA1B8a4kGBRanpqRVpmTglCmomDE2Q4D9DwJz4gw4sLEnOL M9Mh8qcYdTnOr71+nFGIJS8/L1VKnNcSZJAASFFGaR7cHFjKesUoDvSWMK8GSBUPMN3BTXoF tIQJaEnA9kyQJSWJCCmpBkZfnjeZLn+WqYg3/Cu688Zb5sz7dfsXnnprs2b9ncty+7fH/d9/ 5egF8dkPtp6bZift9dvTcWHHJcXWG4zhdtcipy4UfGfA819bc5/fio2fwoLXJ3R9Ms7cfP9n 6aE3htJGu769dD7ucHnBlS5jt8+OXxSeb/vIGJN90MbDWPBQgEXz76sOwibOSizFGYmGWsxF xYkA6YyuPzQDAAA= Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:33:12 -0000 Quoth Thomas Schwinge on Sep 09 at 7:22 pm: > Hi! > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:13:06 -0400, Austin Clements wrote: > > The idea behind sending the test first is that people can see that it fails > > and that the subsequent patch indeed fixes it. What I find works well is to > > submit the test case with the test marked as broken and then the main patch, > > including the change to un-mark it as broken. > > Ah, that's indeed a good approach for bug fixes (and it also preserves > git bisect compatibility), but still: why separate patches for new > functionality? (I'm not trying to be a pain here, but would like to > understand your rationale behind this.) *shrugs* I don't think it's too important for new functionality, though for review it's nice to be able to focus on just the implementation or just the tests, rather than having the patches intermingled.