git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH 0/1] t6042: fix breakage on Windows

From
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date
Jan 16, 2019, 15:32 UTC
Message-ID
<CABPp-BEXU7zbOgMK-JQJrNyyaek593okbWM10G1YCx0Gy0o=JA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<pull.109.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Hi Dscho,

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:37 AM Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 32 quoted lines
>
> Unfortunately, Travis decided to change some things under the hood that
> affect the Windows build. As a consequence, master has not been tested in
> quite a while, even if the test runs pretended that it had been tested :-(
>
> So imagine my surprise when master simply would refuse to pass the test
> suite cleanly outside Travis, always failing at t6042, despite the fact that
> Travis passed.
>
> It turns out that two files are written too quickly in succession, running
> into the issue where Git for Windows chooses not to populate the inode and
> device numbers in the stat data (this is a noticeable performance
> optimization). As a consequence, Git thinks the file is unchanged, and fails
> to pick up a modification. And no, we cannot simply undo the performance
> optimization, it would make things prohibitively slow in particular in large
> worktrees, and it is not like the bug is likely to be hit in reality: for
> Git to be fooled into thinking that a file is unchanged, it has to be
> written with the same file size, and within a 100ns time bucket (it is
> pretty improbable that there is any real-world scenario that would run into
> that, except of course our regression test suite).
>
> This patch works around this issue by forcing Git to recognize the new file
> versions as new files (which they really are: the patch simply replaces
>
> git mv <old> <new> && mv <file> <new> && git add <new>`
>
> by
>
> git rm <old> && mv <file> <new> && git add <new>`
>
> which is not shorter, but even a performance improvement (an unnoticeable
> one, of course).

Everything sounds good up to this final sentence. I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding or if there were some simple editing errors; in particular, I'm not sure what "even" means here (should it be left out?), and it seems like you meant "noticeable" rather than "unnoticeable" -- is that correct?

Previous: Johannes SchindelinNext: Johannes Schindelin
Message 7 of 11 in “t6042: fix breakage on Windows”
  1. 0/1 t6042: fix breakage on WindowsJohannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, Jan 16, 2019
  2. 1/1 t6042: work around speed optimization on WindowsJohannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, Jan 16, 2019
  3. Elijah NewrenJan 16, 2019
  4. Johannes SchindelinJan 16, 2019
  5. Elijah NewrenJan 16, 2019
  6. Johannes SchindelinJan 17, 2019
  7. Elijah NewrenJan 16, 2019
  8. Johannes SchindelinJan 16, 2019
  9. 0/1 t6042: fix breakage on WindowsJohannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, Jan 17, 2019
  10. 1/1 t6042: work around speed optimization on WindowsJohannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, Jan 17, 2019
  11. Junio C HamanoJan 17, 2019

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.