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=-3.9 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 A8C0E1F4B4 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 19:07:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727152AbgJMTHP (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:07:15 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:63355 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727033AbgJMTHO (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:07:14 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E790210108A; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:07:12 -0400 (EDT) (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=jEQ2p7p5qVkNhaSK7L7jDqW6Eug=; b=WQOv+v C6noFYcs+um1HWk8ldAs8AuK+gaQY9gQ+6qJGXCNbdh2R/+qqVT9KKAkP88yFyLt KBhVmA6si5C4XDzTngKerQuwxn6qYRxz5M/04tJQUqXmpBAXG89FEDoeRqNcUnkL ZJwQMKRDwwsyalfD6nP7K06F14Jx19KlUnWE4= 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=G4NbCqZsNwxHAqmVv70rOSopVTlfKz5g D3HJmxzpvoh4URmn0Tw7MQHnM4aHSalepohUF9b4w2SAtRtnUF5Yiv39wecxsJiy PbZyINDiBJsY2Z2ZiDFm5mmy34x7pniQSquTS6PuNwl8aRHp4Zs6eZ17L+WIJrmT WKpilUqRtw4= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00D2101089; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:07:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 213E8101088; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:07:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] t5500.43: make the check a bit more robust References: <20201013185515.GA2994107@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 12:07:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20201013185515.GA2994107@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 13 Oct 2020 14:55:15 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4B63FC8C-0D87-11EB-8A85-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: >> Work around flakiness in t5500.43 >> >> It seems that this test became flaky only recently, although I have to >> admit that I have no idea why: the involved code does not seem to have >> changed recently at all. It should have been fixed by >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200506220741.71021-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/ >> , but apparently wasn't completely fixed, despite what I said in that >> thread. > > I think this is a real bug, and we shouldn't be changing the tests to > accommodate. Users may actually see the broken lines, and our tests are > telling us that. True; I reacted too hastily. Will not queue the workaround ;-)