From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] travis-ci: run previously failed tests first, then slowest to fastest Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:35:56 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1453195469-51696-1-git-send-email-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <711209F5-E034-459E-8E85-BF8BC32B2E86@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net To: Lars Schneider X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 20 21:36:05 2016 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 1aLzU4-0002ES-4v for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:36:04 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754362AbcATUgA (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:36:00 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:63959 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753856AbcATUf6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:35:58 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EBB3C441; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:35:57 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=zVB51e6++VoshbKOclAvcl6zxHY=; b=ibsKuF E4YA4ZytylOkh9Hmazutt9cXylitaVhk5kBQ50+yMQWp7icyzqlhRu7DiY452UMe vuCqArsPeLCwJ6B60vcITQevZqcnplMjXJ/R7NDXcgfAD6RTiBtrGbdVzC704HaG +rBCyY/IJHBffeV9ErY6OTbeUFXHemYgv3R10= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=BYsB6e7uHn1jl+StIGJ515KatoscGrr+ uhsJSs4JukmZKU1sM86qjrn1Pv1ERDeAK91/QiD2e+iKn7SAVonYyF6fwH9Cqe43 4Dha7w9rKpP7GC5Qm32qpmtCCvkgBDxlRaT7fjl/eUDM7vfjBpAo0+nhPNgM+4Yd AKcNYQfgDyY= Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F193C440; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:35:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [216.239.45.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E2453C43D; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:35:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <711209F5-E034-459E-8E85-BF8BC32B2E86@gmail.com> (Lars Schneider's message of "Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:04:44 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 68D319B2-BFB5-11E5-8CD2-6BD26AB36C07-77302942!pb-smtp0.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Lars Schneider writes: > On 19 Jan 2016, at 21:00, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> IOW, I am confused by the beginning of the log message that says >> this is taking advantage of "the Travis-CI cache feature". This >> improvement looks to me like using the feature of "prove" that >> allows us to run slower tests first, and does not have much to do >> with Travis. >> >> You are relying on the assumption that things under $HOME/ is stable >> while things under t/ (or in our source tree in general) are not, >> and I think that is a sensible thing to take advantage of, but are >> we sure that they are running in an environment where "ln -s" would >> work? Otherwise, it may be more robust to copy $HOME/.prove to >> t/.prove before starting to test and then copy it back once the >> tests are done. > > OK, looks like my wording was not ideal. One important thing to know is that > $HOME is *not* stable. These TravisCI machines start *always* in a completely > clean state. Ah, that is what I missed. Travis makes everything transient by default (which is a sensible thing to do for CI), but it lets you declare some things are to be made stable, and that is the "cache" feature you are taking advantage of in Travis. The log message needs to be clarified in a reroll, but thanks for clarifying it for me in advance ;-) That only leaves one question from me: Is 'ln -s' safe enough? Would copying back and forth make it more robust? I am guessint the answers are Yes and No, in which case the patch text can (and should) stay as-is. Thanks.