From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918371F404 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 18:55:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1427580AbeCBSz5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:55:57 -0500 Received: from mail-vk0-f42.google.com ([209.85.213.42]:38070 "EHLO mail-vk0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422764AbeCBSz4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:55:56 -0500 Received: by mail-vk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id s1so6336227vke.5 for ; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:55:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BssoJn7az5hNMVFZysxwGcQAd8cbZYweefKGBQ+tF7o=; b=sYc4F/grQTRjrtQyOiZsQukqpZQ+VBpxIUv2KI4D4h9kNzwgYVP6Spph6+d0wXgLtB 9dxUMcu7zX89TAL0JjrJ7imHi0mIczCQpplbndnzbt73mVGGJKyCAiPRyGlDx9uwQih7 rvDFHtsahtzO47vZQV3sI39av00FlEvSvlaVH5nGykmUNTbIw+wJSiJpSghmdNI7FkGf C1Yle3jwGKx2MxC2pUGPV/45wQr3qotokmiOGLDSOfOJsSATF05MU45mFy0Djm89lme8 zZq0M2kfg9STm7bGT11IjkrsILXwz+z3Xqm2+J2J1qEvp9EAEwXE3knTAc9PNmqxFv2c SXfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BssoJn7az5hNMVFZysxwGcQAd8cbZYweefKGBQ+tF7o=; b=AdDkRgII2wQRJFMnnVT6JMyxihnv44hh6whhR4secfbFtab73ZW0lFBEtPmJ3oS0P1 bxibnKAbeCH1sx5sss7GMuaxDZq795NXKUiqTojc6vfZ/Mm92vCYsFWnuEzxDw3RKCPT NLp5TLx9iJEpxziJ0GZZbUdfM8mL2F+TI/5/VEPjmuaFpzn18g1zx1iniBv5c/Nw+uRS oeq46vL7QPOT8cdSZLBy/4Na3aD5srIy2iU8ZMzpb1tv+YrTCneihKbq/RDKB358q35x C+haeKPy2/aj+menkdNoBjHTF6cAFUmdyp3lN6ktz23/uLfw1qEfNGZ16ZTGHUya2cxk qzqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCPQulRWFnYhA0ZNFR4mixPUomBn8b6uyODQEYODdJeS5BH9M8T deTiFIPg9MhX/ydJp5Ds9Yu5YEeamH5e/08PUgw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvQh2GO8xtD3yrtI9ZzI71USPlr0nTiP0KMajAGmA7AO3XDk0RBI9R1iHNNsjQwsKnZyyNTiw/zgl5riKAPqYM= X-Received: by 10.31.78.68 with SMTP id c65mr4432975vkb.58.1520016955322; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:55:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.59.233 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:55:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?SZEDER_G=C3=A1bor?= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 19:55:54 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2018, #01; Thu, 1) To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git mailing list , Lars Schneider Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > OK, I think I now understand what happened. I misread the "fold" > discussion and thought we were still exploring the possibility, to > avoid showing uninteresting zero-status case to the users. > > If we do not care about that part, then it seems that the discussion > thread is complete. Let's move on. I think we don't care much about folding, at least not in conjunction with the patch in question. And even if we change our minds in the future, we can always add that on top. Note that nowadays there is a _different_ issue that may make folding worthwhile. Recently[1] we started to run the test suite twice in one of the Linux build jobs: once "as usual" and once with split index enabled. If a test fails in this build job, then it's impossible to tell which one of the two test runs failed just by looking at the end of the build job's log; one has to scroll back to the start of the failed test run to see the executed command shown by the 'set -x' trace. Now, if the failure happened in the split index enabled test run, then this line is somewhere in the middle of the looong log (even without the patch in question!), which is a bit inconvenient to find. If the outputs of building Git _and_ the "as usual" test run were folded, then this line would be closer to the top and easier to find. Though, arguably, if all or most of the other build jobs have succeeded, then it's quite likely that the failure happened in the split index enabled test run. And if the other build jobs have failed as well, then, on one hand, the failure is almost certainly in the "as usual" test run, and, on the other hand, one can check the output of any of those other failed build jobs to see what went wrong. As far as I observed, the failure tends to happen in the split index enabled test run most of the time ;) and I have a couple of patches almost ready for submission to address some of the transient failures related to split index. [1] - ae59a4e44f (travis: run tests with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX, 2018-01-07)