Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] vreportf: Fix interleaving issues, remove 4096 limitation

> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 10:56:45PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > Back to the issue at hand: I did open a GitGitGadget PR with my proposed
> > change, in the hopes that I could somehow fast-track this fix into the
> > CI/PR builds over at https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git, but there are
> > problems: it seems that now there is an at least occasional broken pipe
> > in the same test when run on macOS.
>
> Yes, I think that's another issue in the same test. There's more
> discussion further down in the thread I linked earlier, starting here:
>
>   https://public-inbox.org/git/20190829143805.GB1746@sigill.intra.peff.net/
>
> and I think Gábor's solution here:
>
>   https://public-inbox.org/git/20190830121005.GI8571@szeder.dev/
>
> is the right direction (and note that this _isn't_ just a test artifact,
> but a bug that occasionally hits real-world cases, too).

> > There _also_ seems to be something spooky going on in t3510.12 and .13,
> > where the expected output differs from the actual output only by a
> > re-ordering of the lines:
> >
> > -- snip --
> > [...]
> > +++ diff -u expect advice
> > --- expect	2019-10-25 22:17:44.982884700 +0000
> > +++ advice	2019-10-25 22:17:45.278884500 +0000
> > @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
> >  error: cherry-pick is already in progress
> > -hint: try "git cherry-pick (--continue | --skip | --abort | --quit)"
> >  fatal: cherry-pick failed
> > +hint: try "git cherry-pick (--continue | --skip | --abort | --quit)"
> > -- snap --
>
> Hrm. I'd have thought those are both coming from the same process. Which
> implies that we're not fflushing stderr before calling write(2). But
> your patch seems to do so...
>
> <scratches head> Aha. I think you force-pushed up as I am typing this.
> :) So I think that is indeed the solution.

> > So much as I would love to see the flakiness of t5516 be fixed as soon
> > as possible, I fear we will have to look at the underlying issue a bit
> > closer: there are two processes writing to `stderr` concurrently. I
> > don't know whether there would be a good way for the `stderr` of the
> > `upload-pack` process to be consumed by the `fetch` process, and to be
> > printed by the latter.
>
> The worst part is that this message already _is_ consumed by fetch: we
> send it twice, once over the sideband, and once directly to stderr. In
> most cases the stderr version is lost, but some server providers might
> be collecting it. I wouldn't mind seeing the direct-to-stderr one
> dropped. There's some more discussion in (from the same thread linked
> earlier):
>
>   https://public-inbox.org/git/20190828145412.GB14432@sigill.intra.peff.net/