From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Scharfe?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] test results for v1.7.12-rc0 on cygwin Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:57:10 +0200 Message-ID: <5014FAE6.7080009@lsrfire.ath.cx> References: <50143379.8050500@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , GIT Mailing-list To: Ramsay Jones X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 29 11:03:45 2012 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 1SvPPc-0008Ip-Hq for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:03:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752367Ab2G2JDf convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2012 05:03:35 -0400 Received: from india601.server4you.de ([85.25.151.105]:38295 "EHLO india601.server4you.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752069Ab2G2JDa (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2012 05:03:30 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 371 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 05:03:30 EDT Received: from [192.168.2.105] (p4FFD8CEF.dip.t-dialin.net [79.253.140.239]) by india601.server4you.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6EB42F8051; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:57:16 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <50143379.8050500@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones: > Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in t7810-g= rep.sh. > I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus: > > $ for i in $(seq 100); do > > if ! ./t7810-grep.sh -i -v; then > > break; > > fi > > done > $ > > but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't re= sult > in a failure. :( > > However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redu= ndant) > test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce t= he > failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...] Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep only,= =20 is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on MAXARGS). I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure, though.=20 Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if you leave=20 out the option -v? Thanks, Ren=E9