From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CFD1F5CB for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 02:45:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731120AbfDWCpV (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2019 22:45:21 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:36296 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729113AbfDWCpV (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2019 22:45:21 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id b1so6705907wru.3 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:45:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=IlRhaFXjDZJu5Rf9ynvwsPdkyrorNk5rqKjsvX/XXBs=; b=dAnx/JXqEkqQrLH9v+wPfI36JaE02trRJN2nIDOwnUk09qgbsshjhin7bzXFA4IyHC lXHwQMU78KKARZhOPmfXTRXloWSFDIf3lpttPKkLPlmkmcAXSkmNB+Dk0bf+xELqAdF+ daZHTA+IEvyNLgQCcQSLRtHpgURzYAwjFjGQ1dNxCgvIxu8apL4A722Zghkpc5bFOFyj MqobuG73VbID749//yEWK4HYcq1dm3mmEqRuTLFclLy7oqU9Y6tGFT6/WGrqBf7wSXWj geRzTpk4CttmJfrzZ4A9ULOUJz11Tijr2YgLVfNNfhWZAC21LKj4DASk3hzshruO5J4u 90Fw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=IlRhaFXjDZJu5Rf9ynvwsPdkyrorNk5rqKjsvX/XXBs=; b=Pde2RqSTVYG/3D4PcahTXspLnvvEAUa4SrtE9fseB+zo4zdcXpSwMgbGGayM8/gdhG if5GjtrEr7xrSRnQ3cdRz83apGiz7x5ZQfUBvA/x6GmQb2qi+lQ8v9vaPq/wKkIZSaik 9UYUktopasp+DINiIiXnHTOk+ME74kS7FE+mLjc4RkQB7DgydaGSD7bV4mjRVBKZfqgd uh6RFq/q54oQ744jMiX2iRvUbFrAHgun23yxs2P8BC93vF12l/CuwrH1E5bmHkcu978f MywVpZL/kDZcFaKBPOFPxssYoq9QQq9AyeoYNCBDLbXC/DAURZOAJQLwf6Xws38RyTz2 MFqA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVpZ0hPLqzaoD2JOd+DDitiZO1mNY+kLyqn9y6Iy7Rord870Nr0 i44qD1/GkBDu1h+o3MvIgoaH5CPJ2T4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyLf/b9De1tavG/QBhtxjb7gqArMj54Cwx1Tue7T7+YY1eisf1+0L364TpolQe0QZO++kExCA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6646:: with SMTP id f6mr1330497wrw.68.1555987519008; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (141.255.76.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.76.255.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n6sm18059244wmn.48.2019.04.22.19.45.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:45:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: do people find t5504.8 flaky? Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:45:17 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org I have been seeing occasional failures of t5504-fetch-receive-strict test on the cc/replace-graft-peel-tags topic, but it seems that the fork point of that topic from the mainline already fails the same step #8, only less frequently. The push is rejected as expected, but the remote side that receives the "push" fails and the local side does not leave an expected output we expect when the test fails.