From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: t3306 failure with v1.7.5-rc1 Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:06:46 +0200 Message-ID: <4D9EB406.5080302@viscovery.net> References: <4D9ECF7C.6010709@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 08 09:06:56 2011 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 1Q85mR-0000ki-RS for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:06:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754600Ab1DHHGu (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:06:50 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:46448 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754567Ab1DHHGu (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:06:50 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254-static.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q85mJ-0005M0-2V; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:06:47 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id B064F1660F; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 09:06:46 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 In-Reply-To: <4D9ECF7C.6010709@drmicha.warpmail.net> X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 4/8/2011 11:03, schrieb Michael J Gruber: > I get this stupid test failure in test 3 of t3306. The problem is that a > dangling commit does not get pruned away when it should: > > 3rd > test_must_fail: command succeeded: git cat-file -p > 5ee1c35e83ea47cd3cc4f8cbee0568915fbbbd29 > not ok - 4 verify that commits are gone > > It's a system where make complains about funny clock (I dunno why) but > can we make this more robust? The following helps with "sleep 5" but not > with "sleep 4". test_tick does not help. What's going on? Looking at the time of day of your last emails (it's ~2 hours in the future), I'd say something is fishy with your system's clock. Fix that first. -- Hannes