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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,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 326151F5AE for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 02:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230218AbhEYCmf (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2021 22:42:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:51303 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229785AbhEYCme (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2021 22:42:34 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7ECBB2A3; Mon, 24 May 2021 22:41:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=B5fHsPucJDzGwqf9o4WL0gISNrbLhgRdhFEDbF QB8ek=; b=YK+J2/aPn4YxmNOxlRCBeyJRRct/guCAgcT26uBWX0wsUNWH++0H7O gOCuhMl0zjUisvKtvobHoY5an2prgCSQMIdUHoBr9dQptXrnsv+s9mV02XkcOYtw caczcu3ZKrpfzqwuFe6OLHCTGcWnzqZ18JWLVAzkLz3f4JyocgIcs= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929E3BB2A2; Mon, 24 May 2021 22:41:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.73.10.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EF9FBB2A1; Mon, 24 May 2021 22:41:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH] t1092: use GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY for consistent results References: Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 11:41:04 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Derrick Stolee's message of "Mon, 24 May 2021 16:38:18 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A6CA1BEE-BD02-11EB-ABCA-FD8818BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: > The test is comparing the same exact Git command just with > different configurations. Any change to what Git writes to > stderr should be consistent across these, unless there is > an explicit reason why it would behave differently across > these options (for example, saying "You are in a sparse > checkout" in 'git status'). > > There are no expectations that stderr is stable across > versions of Git. These tests don't add friction to developers > making new features or changing the error messages that appear > over stderr. It's just that these tests should catch any > unintended inconsistency across these modes. If it just happens that an auto-gc gets triggered, and millions of other similar reasons in the future, will break that expectation, without running two different vintages of Git. I agree with Jonathan that it fundamentally is flakey to expect two invocations of Git will behave exactly the same. Even repacking a repository starting from exactly the same state into a single pack may not produce byte-for-byte identical result due to thread scheduling.