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 802FF2018D for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 06:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751166AbdEIGbu (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 02:31:50 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f65.google.com ([74.125.83.65]:36378 "EHLO mail-pg0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750942AbdEIGbt (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 02:31:49 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f65.google.com with SMTP id 64so6205737pgb.3 for ; Mon, 08 May 2017 23:31:49 -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=0W5LAp7oDLE0ogMNBLaOc3INNKOoh49ybRjJ7bPCRAA=; b=CM3UUh7+oX/qb+W5ye4FtChRtYBKpioAe0L0h+K8qbGyXGVl6HmxOAUSUYNgxgVdMo /0oW7W9x20QmXfLRzHGZLyIg7K9z8txzXoa7Gm6Sf5zN5RqwNeY6LPq1DrfRDWh/Z6Wz PdXeL6kR14rCuGZXGQUugmR5oeQE+8UkCwWQW7FUGRZ9nV6xzBdab+cyDLkJfhFnC9Ia mKw20D+qt1VKgEdOf1uiSBZhv9l0CKxUZuqDfR+hIr0e1dQZ3Il9CBYEqgrg7TSw36LO EXafsemO7LTOvsnEMb4orhdeJFkNruMg0hG26itvkM6lxSrK4wP6wFWzy/LCUOrmUK9E D5Gw== 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=0W5LAp7oDLE0ogMNBLaOc3INNKOoh49ybRjJ7bPCRAA=; b=uBJgqvpr4iuoivgqBQLOQDn9QDcARktSJnfgeg4iiEoO09P/cBgbx9MWiwXiRbnbrA kc0d7lOT+w4D9eK/tUk0j0HyVAQdosELxNf1U4BzRbWQ3cZfvdC4wkXNcp7FJ02Xz3eI edzOjjmlfhvY2q1TCgEdcBWEtA3tnCkf0y+/NTYF4vIPE8zpYwqup2i2k/8+RyzcGKSW wH1mKKgb2UH9b+95UVme89wGtNbE8SvMxoR0r6ZEto0Pm7yzCcc4IBqW1t/Ro2h7eugJ ewN6VDbdfNn+YoTFxmNJO+AkyFO9Q6EtCqscwUClUQ5BDejpPXkji9vGUVKNbngChzCR wx5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5xfsK/piHbY6WcGN9SMAxqxnrKQOm/bfSIGOqVTphYRWFbJbKT evZk0OPjlb2Crw== X-Received: by 10.99.104.6 with SMTP id d6mr23302840pgc.185.1494311509267; Mon, 08 May 2017 23:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:9133:cf19:b689:27d6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b90sm10354912pfj.19.2017.05.08.23.31.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 May 2017 23:31:48 -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> Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 15:31:47 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20170503215015.17949-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> (Lars Schneider's message of "Wed, 3 May 2017 23:50:15 +0200") 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: > The Git for Windows CI web app sometimes returns HTTP errors of > "502 bad gateway" or "503 service unavailable" [1]. We also need to > check the HTTP content because the GfW web app seems to pass through > (error) results from other Azure calls with HTTP code 200. > Wait a little and retry the request if this happens. > > [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-in/azure/app-service-web/app-service-web-troubleshoot-http-502-http-503 > > Signed-off-by: Lars Schneider > --- > > Hi Junio, > > I can't really test this as my TravisCI account does not have the > extended timeout and I am unable to reproduce the error. > > 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? It's not like a possible breakage in this patch will harm anything (the relaying to the Windows CI is flaky if the build server cannot deal with the load anyway), so I would rather have this early in 'next', while we deal with a few other topics that Windows build is not happy with that are on 'pu'.