Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

[Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:36 AM Johannes Schindelin
>> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>> > > > Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but I have to wonder
>> > > > if writing the pid in the first place is sane.
>> > > >
>> > > > I started to write up my reasoning in this email, but realized it was
>> > > > rapidly becoming the content of a commit message. So here is that
>> > > > commit.
>> > >
>> > > Sounds sensible; if this makes Dscho's "which ones failed in the
>> > > previous run" simpler, that is even better ;-)
>> >
>> > I did not have the time to dig further before now. There must have been a
>> > good reason why we append the PID.
>> >
>> > Sverre, you added that code in 2d84e9f (Modify test-lib.sh to output stats
>> > to t/test-results/*, 2008-06-08): any idea why the -<pid> suffix was
>> > needed?
>>
>> I can't really recall, but I think it may have been related to me
>> doing something like this:
>> 1. Make a change, and start running tests (this takes a long time)
>> 2. Notice a failure, start fixing it, leave tests running to find
>> further failures
>> 3. Finish fix, first tests are still running, start another run in a
>> new terminal (possibly of just the one failed test I was fixing) to
>> see if the fix worked.
>>
>> Without the pid, the second run would clobber the results from the first run.
>>
>>
>> If only past-me was more rigorous about writing good commit messages :P.
>
> :-)
>
> Would present-you disagree with stripping off the -<pid> suffix, based on
> your recollections?

No objections, I think it should be fine. If anyone uncovers a
particularly compelling reason later on, it's only a commit away :).

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier