Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2017, #04; Thu, 13)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 17, 2017, 22:09 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqmv82g1g7.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170717214241.yui75hywg2ddkfsb@LykOS.localdomain>

Santiago Torres <santiago@nyu.edu> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Other projects such as notmuch opted for a solution that's simlar to
> what I had suggested[1], but I wonder if it's even necessary to do.
> There is already a fix on the master branch of gnupg[2], which I imagine
> will show up to the next version of gpg2.
>
> I don't think it would make sense to fix anything on our side, unless we
> want to be extra sure the test suite is not leaking agents for all gpg
> versions (including these minor versions).

I am not sure if it is merely "if it's even necessary"; if there are two tests running in parallel, with their own separate $TRASH_DIRECTORY, and one of them say "kill the agent" at the beginning, would it affect the other test, depending on the timing?

I would imagine that the sockets are kept per GNUPGHOME and they are not going to interfere, so if that is the case, I do not think we mind helping folks with a buggy versions of GnuPG by having a "let's be cautious and kill a leftover agent before starting to test" patch, as long as the reason why we do so is clearly understood and documented.

Thanks for digging it to the root cause.