From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Randall S. Becker" Subject: RE: t5570 - not cloned error Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 18:23:41 -0400 Message-ID: <017401d08782$24d6f5b0$6e84e110$@nexbridge.com> References: <013701d08769$a5bbab80$f1330280$@nexbridge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , "'Joachim Schmitz'" To: "'Junio C Hamano'" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 06 00:23:56 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YplFq-0002yW-9q for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 00:23:54 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965550AbbEEWXu (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2015 18:23:50 -0400 Received: from elephants.elehost.com ([216.66.27.132]:57717 "EHLO elephants.elehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964824AbbEEWXt (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2015 18:23:49 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at elehost.com Received: from pangea (CPE0023eb577e25-CM602ad06c91a7.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.237.128.150]) (authenticated bits=0) by elephants.elehost.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t45MNhsv035060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 May 2015 18:23:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rsbecker@nexbridge.com) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Content-language: en-ca Thread-index: AQGTGMzZfqjkVUQ9RxorcLBPHDSlfQLCdjq/ndK9scA= Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On May 5, 2015 6:01 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Randall S. Becker" writes: > > We definitely have an issue with localhost. When forcing the DNS resolver to > > return 127.0.0.1, we pass 1-16 then 17 fails as I expected to happen based > > on my DNS futzing. Heads up that this test is not-surprisingly sensitive to > > DNS problems. My environment is still in a messy state where I can reproduce > > the original problem so it might be a useful moment for me to find a way to > > modify the test script to harden it. Any suggestion on that score > > (as in where and roughly how it might be made more reliable)? > > I do not think this counts as a useful "suggestion", but is this > "resolver does not work for local as expected" case even worth > protecting our tests against? I see your point, but after having spent "way too much time" away from the $DAYJOB tracking this down, I was hoping to catch the root cause earlier next time. Perhaps adding a test step validating that localhost comes back with a reasonable value - whatever that may be in context. I'm just not sure what the test really needs at its heart to run properly - obviously the IP address of the system as visible in our DMZ is not working for the test.