RE: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.22.0-rc3

["Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 10:14 AM, I wrote:
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 9:50 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > To: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
> > Cc: 'Junio C Hamano' <gitster@pobox.com>; git@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.22.0-rc2
> >
> > Hi Randall,
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, Randall S. Becker wrote:
> >
> > > Just a few small nits from RC2 test results on the NonStop TNS/E
> > > platform:
> > >
> > > 1. t0021 subtest 15 is being flakey. It fails on the first run (make
> > > -k
> > > test) but succeeds when run in isolation. This is new on the NonStop
> > > TNS/E platform. t0021 has been a bit flakey in the past, but not
> > > recently. Just thought I'd mention it. It's only slightly
> > > disconcerting because I make very heavy use of smudge filters but
> > > since it runs fine in isolation, I'm going to assume it is fine. We
> > > had one unsubstantiated report of an occasional misfire of smudge
> > > filters, but no substantive evidence at this point to reproduce the
> situation.
> >
> > t0021.15 is indeed flaky, and not only for NonStop. It is so flaky,
> > even,
> that I
> > opened https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/241
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > > 2. t7519 subtest 25 still does not pass (previously reported for
> > > RC1) when run via "make -k test" the first time. This runs
> > > successfully when run in isolation or the second time.
> >
> > I offered a fix for that in js/fsmonitor-unflake, and it already made
> > it
> into
> > `next` (and hopefully into v2.22.0) as you can see here:
> > https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/commit/b5a81697520 (look for the
> > branch symbol below the commit message).
> 
> I'll keep an eye out for it. We are good with RC2 anyway.
> 
> > > 3. t9001, t9020, t9600, t9601, t9602, t9604, fail, but should not
> > > run on platform (not new, just a reminder). We do not have sendmail
> > > or subversion.
> >
> > At least for Subversion, this should be detected. For send-email, I
> > don't know... There *was* a bug in t9001 where it failed to mark a
> > send-email tests cases with the `PERL` prerequisite, but that was
> > fixed, and I guess
> you
> > have Perl anyway?
> 
> Yes, we do have Perl on the box. However, the send-email functions do not
> work - probably missing modules. As far as SVN goes, we have the git SVN
> modules, but not the actual SVM modules in our Perl. There has been some
> effort to port those, but we have had CPAN issues for a while now. I am
> trying to find a resource to help with porting - personally, I could
really use
> the SVN module to allow svn2git to function on box. That would make my
> life a whole lot easier.

RC3 shows no new breaks on NonStop. We are good with approving this one.

Kind Regards,
Randall