From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E7D62F83A7 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 16:22:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.147 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760113365; cv=none; b=elzkhz8afLAUCZuAoafnDEIe7ukY7DrKmaZVC1ovr99geVyj9ha9McqcKMnd7Ilcrnys1hvvqhmZE0duEAYNs45B4U7MkM38+GJlKQnGqa6vhKg6J30Mrm969iD+OFFqZhvQSnEl6WaENKzqeHX7nc1ETphehvOGmpuv4xl9AV0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760113365; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qQs1+fGjsBunL6y83pOiTD635ZSOMT7w0v8LqaqIK7A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=AbzhyvByo0gUTIZZLGWqudwj9YU0oL/ZPJPP3657wN7oYnluuGMOUmBaj+6UrzJid3tRNjLQdM/Kb/RoFrCeUulDjnzqQTPNXFWkDpJRNMtgWhMqPcvfLOfjzoT1UX9bG70UktZgrvKWajTJ6m0nmZUrHawKyuAdOKrf0ytTrl4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=CDGuGijq; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=YbYf1WHO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.147 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="CDGuGijq"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="YbYf1WHO" Received: from phl-compute-12.internal (phl-compute-12.internal [10.202.2.52]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32293EC00D9; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:22:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-12.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:22:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1760113363; x=1760199763; bh=xtPPG1l35Q dKUOcuwbqPEPHHU1UFD9JM5KpPNLRPpO4=; b=CDGuGijq6SB8RS9v7liPycN5oF oEGps0yUgFW38CLOE7v5i+W7WQrMGS4+Fyyhqn+HYN2pr86QhZ32b3vZmP/3IVoG eXYhGd34JLjkAfp9C2mdV6yu3ob19ntC70jRXb4qYvNIoBglTNFCq4uNf9gCzwPh N1rik1dl8Ei92h/E37hfdh8UQHYAl2Lipn8Sib/6NfEdUTN4s7LcG3cwjz+Kaa4t YNiPKdk+KLh3X61GUOToQoPRwS8NnwAAP0Y7DlTHw++5VtXQiMkZPBiqpuBp6Ki2 Xey7IDOOyipLhn0BfxnfU69Pu3CErPKXOgaaGzYlqLT9KgLcsHdj/8ARkqFw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1760113363; x=1760199763; bh=xtPPG1l35QdKUOcuwbqPEPHHU1UFD9JM5Kp PNLRPpO4=; b=YbYf1WHOSJfYLkfsQP8v/TLyhgdO7lvxvUGwHg+r979xyYVOdzG r5K/5iUd3TLDdogvR8tlTNqZLjnX4sS4+DMSb2v+Gw0UQ+QDxhimN+2G9YSUYo6M Y6t19X8u9doHzKQrOKtga9+x6umvvwPV3YK4J/m9IPT4kJu74T/u49rRFxOgcKXN GTsvzL7VNGRCcDjQhHDIY8Dh22iF9rcRxEt+R4w60VGUj1CkI2dkd/OwHBn4JXve pI3WfE0vpZKjubVotfy+3gq9MRseYnZ0HjVMiUJ7/Wb2/u2oXz4/S/Gt1q9Gw4mS 1GHWCjPnOA7wM/4p0qnc1WMRFoSVcSC9RRA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddutdelheefucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtofdttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepieekueefhfetvdfftdegfeekhfffgefgfeeivddugeffgfffffevvedvieel ffdunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddupdhmohguvgep shhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehtmhiisehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoh epphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopegthhhrihhsthhirghnrdgtohhuuggvrhes ghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorh hgpdhrtghpthhtohepnhgvfihrvghnsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepphgv fhhfsehpvghffhdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehsrghnuggrlhhssegtrhhushhthihtoh hothhhphgrshhtvgdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehjohhhrghnnhgvshdrshgthhhinhgu vghlihhnsehgmhigrdguvgdprhgtphhtthhopegtohhllhhinhdrfhhunhhkudesghhmrg hilhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:22:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Todd Zullinger Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren , Jeff King , "brian m . carlson" , Johannes Schindelin , Collin Funk , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] lib-gpg: allow tests with GPGSM or GPGSSH prereq first In-Reply-To: (Todd Zullinger's message of "Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:09:55 -0400") References: <20251007122958.1089680-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20251009122457.1273701-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20251009122457.1273701-3-christian.couder@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 09:22:41 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Todd Zullinger writes: > I agree. But it is ugly that any tests we have which rely > on the GPG2 prereq simply never run. That should be fixed > and, if it were me, I'd do so by dropping the flaky tests in > t1016 initially. Someone who cares about those tests > running could debug it more and hopefully fix the problem. Let me queue your two patches as-is to leave the tip of 'seen' broken for a few days to see if anybody bites ;-). After that, we may do "s|test_expect_success|test_expect_failure|" on those tests that you call "flaky". Are they flaky in the sense that they sometimes pass sometimes fail depending on the timing, or just simply buggy and always fail? > The t1016-compatObjectFormat tests have been flaky since > they were added and no one really noticed. That's at least > partly a failure of our CI output, which hides these sort of > skipped tests that we just presume are running. I don't > have any good suggestions for fixing that, unfortunately. Thanks.