From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Larry D'Anna Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] receive-pack: Send hook output over side band #2 Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:41:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20100209174118.GA14620@cthulhu> References: <1265403462-20572-1-git-send-email-spearce@spearce.org> <1265403462-20572-7-git-send-email-spearce@spearce.org> <20100209165207.GA12030@cthulhu> <20100209172027.GC26964@spearce.org> <20100209173307.GA1115@cthulhu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 09 18:41:59 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Neu5Y-0000NR-Ps for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:41:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755287Ab0BIRlT (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:41:19 -0500 Received: from cthulhu.elder-gods.org ([140.239.99.253]:51158 "EHLO cthulhu.elder-gods.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755124Ab0BIRlS (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:41:18 -0500 Received: by cthulhu.elder-gods.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6596A82200F; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:41:18 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100209173307.GA1115@cthulhu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: * Larry D'Anna (larry@elder-gods.org) [100209 12:33]: > * Shawn O. Pearce (spearce@spearce.org) [100209 12:20]: > > Larry D'Anna wrote: > > > > > > This breaks t5401. See <7v4olqlva7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> in another thread. > > > > No. Your patch causes t5401 to break. If you apply this series on > > top of maint, its fine. If you merge this series into master, and > > correctly fix the Win32 merge conflict in run-command.c, its fine. > > Well, the version of this commit that's in pu is defiantly failing t5401 on my > machine. Just tested it again with a clean build. My series isn't an ancestor > of it either. Did you notice the failure is intermittent? You have to run it a > few times before it fails. I also just tried applying the series on top of maint myself, same result. --larry