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=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID 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 82EC52018D for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 23:51:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750986AbdEIXu7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 19:50:59 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com ([209.85.192.196]:35499 "EHLO mail-pf0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750734AbdEIXu6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 19:50:58 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f196.google.com with SMTP id u26so1716044pfd.2 for ; Tue, 09 May 2017 16:50:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=7cUhFiEFThQ9F3GHLKK95EeSriu3NPFkgEsv6jVkFaU=; b=smEJrkOoN+dMa9kd1Qz1o4Kj0sUKUKHPES34OeI4x3ySSSiPRHp7ks+JjQLGVLSv+S V6moCBaIOJEEsStchT0LpPvZ9UHsUp8rpVNSMy1yzBEsvlzOuRUwnEIVv+vo99uqWsqp Jsl0TpgK+jM4xyDeEJeCptx1GfxKs3LBJd5TA1qzvBWdPRug2tX92wPb1SdsyJv73C8w OGCoDURIljwC4If7stMwPXR/3qPVdKUA/KhHmQ+XbXaxtYnCtsUxxMaTL89nUBpKLXbM pIRHz2/cTuD4vzjrjwPga3BDIHkNWEWNX5g9BXZiK6APDrhZG+hY5hVXljVNrMxwRo4G 4TJg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=7cUhFiEFThQ9F3GHLKK95EeSriu3NPFkgEsv6jVkFaU=; b=C+FMQBrClhRGj+NEeff1d2ua8W+z64hz9bsxtsri1FExjTNHdiuT/R1jZJtxk7IzHX ZfMxSINMHJVP5LkwotSxNSqiR/flXP0DE1TqvuKY5zzu9GVE+FqEOKuHAWmPYlTCnrV5 Su6KuMYTeha1wXQ2lzWJBi6lLtgF2YF1Ic23ahAlrD0GhnMGQxv3Iyz+qExm6RLA90zw PKtBBweJlrPBHucVbr0fpTXYL5ZgwjyPsCI9abehuNflu15MYNo+wq4NnQDq/4tvnJ6u xWt3F6FrVVo4JCXxRb4Xqjh0GMtOeECbL2kZlbQIY9Pn4I8Sgo2/DHQM465sp70GXF1/ mVgA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAR4esG97B//bZolhcNYv8DvnCJXnwJf0aEeKNsF+X8nq+oH3eO 2gMQjMTl3lX8WQ== X-Received: by 10.84.231.206 with SMTP id g14mr3881996pln.152.1494373857907; Tue, 09 May 2017 16:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:9133:cf19:b689:27d6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s186sm1589396pfb.98.2017.05.09.16.50.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 May 2017 16:50:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Lars Schneider Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] travis-ci: retry if Git for Windows CI returns HTTP error 502 or 503 References: <20170503215015.17949-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <1ADD08FD-1DC0-4AC5-9E69-AC1A5DCBED83@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 08:50:56 +0900 In-Reply-To: <1ADD08FD-1DC0-4AC5-9E69-AC1A5DCBED83@gmail.com> (Lars Schneider's message of "Tue, 9 May 2017 18:40:01 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Lars Schneider writes: >>> It would be great if we could test this is a little bit in pu. >> >> This has been in 'pu' for a while. >> >> As the patch simply discards 502 (and others), it is unclear if the >> failing test on 'next' is now gone, or the attempt to run 'pu' >> happened to be lucky not to get one, from the output we can see in >> https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/229867212 >> >> Are you comfortable enough to move this forward? > > Yes, please move it forward. I haven't seen a "502 - Web server > received an invalid response" on pu for a while. That means the > patch should work as expected. Will do, thanks. > Unrelated to this patch I have, however, seen two kinds of timeouts: > > (1) Timeout in the "notStarted" state. This job eventually finished > with a failure but it did start only *after* 3h: > https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/230225611 > > (2) Timeout in the "in progress" state. This job eventually finished > successfully but it took longer than 3h: > https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/229867248 > > Right now the timeout generates potential false negative results. > I would like to change that and respond with a successful build > *before* we approach the 3h timeout. This means we could generate > false positives. Although this is not ideal, I think that is the better > compromise as a failing Windows build would usually fail quickly > (e.g. in the compile step). > > What do you guys think? Would you be OK with that reasoning? > If the Git for Windows builds get more stable over time then > we could reevaluate this compromise. I'd rather see a false breakage on Windows build (i.e. "this might have succeeded given enough time, but it didn't finish within the alloted time") than a false sucess (i.e. "we successfully launched and the build is still running, so let's assume the test succeeds"). Because I do not pay attention to what the overall build page [*1*] says about a particular branch tip, and I instead look at the summary list of the indiviaul "Build Jobs", e.g. [*2*]), seeing errored/failed on [*1*] does not bother me personally, if that is what you are getting at. [References] *1* https://travis-ci.org/git/git/builds/ *2* https://travis-ci.org/git/git/builds/230235081