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-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2731F4B4 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S460779AbgJWIuW (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:50:22 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:40312 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S460776AbgJWIuW (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:50:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 27578 invoked by uid 109); 23 Oct 2020 08:50:21 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:50:21 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 19626 invoked by uid 111); 23 Oct 2020 08:50:21 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:50:21 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:50:21 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Work around flakiness in t5500.43 Message-ID: <20201023085021.GF4012156@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 07:35:39PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote: > Changes since v1: > > * Instead of papering over the underlying cause, the patch was completely > changed to actually fix the bug and add a proper regression test for it > (originally, I wanted to act according to the common notion that good > programmers are lazy, oh my, see how well that worked out for me). Thanks for fixing this. Your explanation looks thorough and the code looks correct. Definitely patches 1 and 2 look good to me. I left a few comments on patch 3. -Peff