From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS54825 147.75.192.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from ny.mirrors.kernel.org (ny.mirrors.kernel.org [147.75.199.223]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B5141F44D for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ny.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83B521C27D4D for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:00:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75E436AFC; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:00:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 634F428E2B for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:00:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711530003; cv=none; b=ZqOIEErRrxEnLswdhF+8giMM/7FW/F8QJ5Sn6W98Dkt57+cDNEyNx65R2JCuVd9+bFWeIJnJDN5hlXi4/GDCv6zN8znybHv2/GZ0fq7ZQfS+ivsvggB8lnMbgUh6gJx9Y/sHt4A43+xXct6kYz0xZWD9lGefDArYtblZkbW4f8c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711530003; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TxjuEvVLUxAA5OELDlZlq5UkUiD5tykGBh/QQdb4XXo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KVXT8faZrCv4A98vNUA5SXm5gqp/vq7DdCmP7DHEWwtEm/KF3v3/y1TYFNbKihuKqSQW/MCb0nwb5w0EqObO2nMTZrStsfFTAJktwA65DZ1Vd7ctR3ux/31X3j0GhP0WTnGdxlhBTVw5KICNB5gaNSVE++kK2nkA+9JGWW+RonI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Received: (qmail 22060 invoked by uid 109); 27 Mar 2024 09:00:01 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:00:01 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 24749 invoked by uid 111); 27 Mar 2024 09:00:06 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 05:00:06 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 05:00:00 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Josh Steadmon , git@vger.kernel.org, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] test-tool: add unit test suite runner Message-ID: <20240327090000.GB846805@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 02:33:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Josh Steadmon writes: > > > Please note: this series has once again been rebased onto the latest > > jk/unit-tests-buildfix. > > > > For various reasons (see discussion at [1]) we would like an alternative > > to `prove` for running test suites (including the unit tests) on > > Windows. > > Folks, what's the status of this one? I just checked the RFC thread > and this last one (more than a month ago) and the issues seems to > have been addressed, but I prefer positive acks rather than "we've > seen it already, take our silence as the sign of endorsement". It is not a topic I am really interested in, so I was not following closely. But I think my earlier issues were addressed, and from a quick read now it looks OK to me. (I left one small comment, but I don't think it's a big deal either way). -Peff