Re: [PATCH] t3070: make chain lint tester happy

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Mar 25, 2023, 09:17 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cRfAARLWH7VoQfHbrSETGN-ZiS_d2PTF5J4Lrv3-o5k_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230325084107.GB3738217@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 4:41 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 04:18:54AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > This approach
> > does have the benefit that it gives at least _some_ protection (minus
> > caveats mentioned below) on platforms where it may be common to
> > disable chainlint.pl due to slowness, such as Windows.
>
> Certainly the output from chainlint.pl is much nicer, too. :) I think
> I'd be comfortable dropping the internal one at this point in terms of
> quality. The bigger question to me is whether there are setups where it
> isn't run (you mentioned Windows, but I'd have thought the
> single-process invocation made things nice and fast there).

It was my hope and intention that the single-process invocation would be fast on Windows, but that proved not to be the case, and I've pretty much given up hope that it will ever be fast on that platform. Quoting from [1]:

    Somehow Windows manages to be unbelievably slow no matter what. I
    mentioned elsewhere ... that I tested on a five or six year old
    8-core dual-boot machine. Booted to Linux, running a single
    chainlint.pl invocation using all 8 cores to check all scripts in
    the project took under 1 second walltime. The same machine booted
    to Windows using all 8 cores took just under two minutes(!)
    walltime for the single Perl invocation to check all scripts in
    the project.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cTge7kp9bH+Xd8wpqmEZuuEFE0xQdgqaFP1WAQ-F+xyHA@mail.gmail.com/