Re: [PATCH] packed_ref_store: handle a packed-refs file that is a symlink
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 5, 2021, 01:07 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAMP44s2FrZkbPbi+vFxD1dLfZPtKeJ2QZk5Gk0HgQjMgE_3Rbg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <87lf7p5msj.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 4:42 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03 2021, Jeff King wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> I have some incomplete work somewhere to slurp up all the package > sources I could find in the wild (SRPM's, Debian recipies etc.) and > their patches, the aim was to submit it into contrib/ so we could see > what monkeypatches to git.git existed in the wild. > > Last time I looked at those (and this is from memory, and it was a while > ago) many of those patches / build recipies were simply blindly skipping > or otherwise working around test failures. > > So we can't assume that failures in the wild are reported to us, and I > think many packagers are not running any of our tests at all. If it > compiles and seems to work they're probably just shipping it.
Arch Linux boasts of following upstream as closely as possible, I looked at their build instructions for the umpteenth time to see if I could find anything interesting. While they don't have patches, they do have NO_SVN_TESTS=y (plus a bunch of `cp contrib/*`).
So I don't think any packager can just blindly trust the Git project to do the sensible thing here. Who uses subversion anymore? And who that still uses subversion wants or needs git-svn? And why would failing any of these break the release?
Maybe we need some "test-packager" target that limits the tests to something sensible. Ideally it should be the other way around: packagers run `make test`, and developers `make test-developer`. But that's a bigger discussion.
Cheers.
-- Felipe Contreras