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,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 D5FE21F8C2 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 21:54:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229768AbhBKVxC (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:53:02 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54388 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229469AbhBKVxA (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:53:00 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E892A434F; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:52:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=QTslA44tDzo/9vKq8lmjQ4RAnS4=; b=m6/eR7 7OZrtnKv/WNJ7FXlzZnf9VvzFD6vxWcFLpRroOoahRS1V0RYXVeNLaUB0SHteW/G ORBVVtJmuZtcQjTWzinpyVdZBc/LXEN1/iZRZWEaE3pkQMN34590USh2Sg0jb1gz ND3Ni5vV/sG1cw+d0FdnPMHIDXFsZXgIETy/A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=YfDa+7PHTTsDqlNsAoYb9kA8GGsUsW83 FUwc33W+QbFXpQGOcGCACsW/hLboP4ezPaomLa3EPZoXdousTsXTRWwyuEKTmGd1 ZxC0MvFrHeKdreLp0rebawIJQhy8vewnYQEaokeyqpYLJWPaJsL3wk4mgK4bE+Uf xUrrPlPURkU= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9613DA434E; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:52:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.243.138.161]) (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 21008A434B; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:52:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jiang Xin Cc: Git List , SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , Johannes Sixt , Jiang Xin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] use unique out file in t5411 References: <20210120124906.GA8396@szeder.dev> <20210121025331.21658-1-worldhello.net@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:52:17 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20210121025331.21658-1-worldhello.net@gmail.com> (Jiang Xin's message of "Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:53:29 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6900480A-6CB3-11EB-974A-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jiang Xin writes: > From: Jiang Xin > > t5411 has some test cases for the behavior of failed 'git push' > commands. Even the 'git push' command ended, the output file > may still be updated with messages from 'git-receive-pack' command > running in background. This breaks test cases which reuse the > same 'out' file. I do not recall hearing from SZEDER who raised concerns about "a lot of churn that can be avoided by a change in the code to die more gracefully" in his previous round's review. This has been in 'seen' for a long time, so let's move it down to 'next'. Thanks.