{"thread":{"id":"31127","subject":"[PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin","startedAt":"2012-07-28T18:46:17Z","lastAt":"2012-07-31T17:38:55Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Ramsay Jones","René Scharfe","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":2},"messages":[{"id":"196040","messageId":"50143379.8050500@ramsay1.demon.co.uk","threadId":"31127","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin","fromName":"Ramsay Jones","fromEmail":"ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk","sentAt":"2012-07-28T18:46:17Z","receivedAt":"2012-07-28T18:46:17Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/33702710?v=4"},"body":"Hi Junio,\n\nI actually tested v1.7.12-rc0-22-gcdd159b, thus:\n\n    $ time $(GIT_SKIP_TESTS='t0061.3 t0070.3 t9010 t9300' make test >\n    test-outp1 2>&1)\n\n    real    137m11.901s\n    user    118m55.071s\n    sys     59m50.695s\n    $\n\nthe result, ignoring the explicity skipped tests (nothing new there), was\nthree additional failures:\n\n    t1100.5, t7502.21 and t7810.59\n\nI will be sending a patch to fix t1100.5 (patch #1).\n\nThe failure in t7502-commit.sh seems to be the result of commit 8c5b1ae1\n(\"ident: reject bogus email addresses with IDENT_STRICT\", 24-05-2012)\nbeing more strict with non fully qualified hostnames. I get the \"tell me\nwho you are\" message and the error:\n\n    fatal: unable to auto-detect email address (got 'ramsay@toshiba.(none)')\n\nHowever, I *think* I saw that Jeff has submitted a fix for this already.\n\nUnfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh.\nI tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus:\n\n    $ for i in $(seq 100); do\n    > if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then\n    >     break;\n    > fi\n    > done\n    $\n\nbut, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result\nin a failure. :(\n\nHowever, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant)\ntest. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the\nfailure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...]\n\nATB,\nRamsay Jones\n"},{"id":"196057","messageId":"5014FAE6.7080009@lsrfire.ath.cx","threadId":"31127","inReplyTo":"50143379.8050500@ramsay1.demon.co.uk","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin","fromName":"René Scharfe","fromEmail":"rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx","sentAt":"2012-07-29T08:57:10Z","receivedAt":"2012-07-29T08:57:10Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"l.s.r@web.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/26122331?v=4"},"body":"Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones:\n> Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh.\n> I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus:\n>\n>      $ for i in $(seq 100); do\n>      > if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then\n>      >     break;\n>      > fi\n>      > done\n>      $\n>\n> but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result\n> in a failure. :(\n>\n> However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant)\n> test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the\n> failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...]\n\nRemoving the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep only, \nis relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on MAXARGS).\n\nI'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure, though. \nPerhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if you leave \nout the option -v?\n\nThanks,\nRené\n"},{"id":"196075","messageId":"7va9yiwbmf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"31127","inReplyTo":"5014FAE6.7080009@lsrfire.ath.cx","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-07-29T20:33:44Z","receivedAt":"2012-07-29T20:33:44Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:\n\n> Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones:\n>> Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh.\n>> I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus:\n>>\n>>      $ for i in $(seq 100); do\n>>      > if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then\n>>      >     break;\n>>      > fi\n>>      > done\n>>      $\n>>\n>> but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result\n>> in a failure. :(\n>>\n>> However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant)\n>> test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the\n>> failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...]\n>\n> Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep\n> only, is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on\n> MAXARGS).\n>\n> I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure,\n> though. Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if\n> you leave out the option -v?\n\nThanks for a comment.  I agree that removing the test makes sense,\nand I also agree that the non reproducibleness is worrying (the\nlatter is more important).\n"},{"id":"196241","messageId":"5018182F.5000501@ramsay1.demon.co.uk","threadId":"31127","inReplyTo":"5014FAE6.7080009@lsrfire.ath.cx","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin","fromName":"Ramsay Jones","fromEmail":"ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk","sentAt":"2012-07-31T17:38:55Z","receivedAt":"2012-07-31T17:38:55Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/33702710?v=4"},"body":"René Scharfe wrote:\n> Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones:\n>> Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-grep.sh.\n>> I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus:\n>>\n>>      $ for i in $(seq 100); do\n>>      > if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then\n>>      >     break;\n>>      > fi\n>>      > done\n>>      $\n>>\n>> but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result\n>> in a failure. :(\n>>\n>> However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant)\n>> test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the\n>> failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...]\n> \n> Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep only, \n> is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on MAXARGS).\n\nIndeed.\n\n> I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure, though.\n\nYep, me too.\n\n> Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if you leave \n> out the option -v?\n\nYes, one of the \"among other things\" I tried was to drop the -v, but the\nend result was the same. Also, since I have \"DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove\"\nin my config.mak, I tried:\n\n    $ for i in $(seq 100); do\n    > if ! prove --exec sh t7810-grep.sh; then\n    >     break;\n    > fi\n    > done\n    $\n\nBut again, it didn't provoke a failure (it did run quite a bit faster ...).\n\nI have now run this test file in excess of 600 times without failure in the\nlast two evenings (taking about 5-6 hours wallclock time).\n[I haven't come remotely close to running the test-suite 600 times on\ncygwin in the last 6 years ...]\n\nSo, I'm out of ideas (and will stop trying to reproduce the failure).\n\nATB,\nRamsay Jones\n"}]}