On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 9:38 PM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 12:15:15PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 1:31 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 03:23:08PM +0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > > diff --git a/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh > > > > index f48ed6d03534..69de7a3b84af 100755 > > > > --- a/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh > > > > +++ b/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh > > > I found it to be a bit weird that we have this conditional here. > > > Shouldn't we expect one particular outcome? Even if multiple outcomes > > > would be techincally correct I think we should expect one particular > > > result, but we may add a comment to explain that different output would > > > be fine, too. > > > > Isn't that exactly what I did, with the note I'll copy below? > > Not quite -- you do have a comment explaining why you relax the test. > But I think it would be preferable to _not_ relax the test but still > have a comment that says that the outcome isn't quite clear cut. This > would alert us if the outcome ever changed and thus make it way more of > a concious change if we had to adapt the test, but it would still leave > a future reader in the know that a changed test outcome might actually > be okay. Ah, gotcha.
