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 29CD91F4B4 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:31:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726688AbgI1Rbl (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:31:41 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:56528 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726393AbgI1Rbk (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:31:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6414EE9DA; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:31:38 -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=4c1J8Cl9BYqeXKH/YpgYZraHZsc=; b=TPK9Z9 Gf94StW+aCcNvwqilLdR2qh/eVfO3GWQLeJXGYdeppHxdBb54RnlKzqnIoY/GmnZ lQXj/HBNPEbjCCC9yd6R2fbsjLuHtVeg4pQhm+OvuPBP3ZWoMkAV4uwFLU0ec8+E Nzn+tCZAGj2VZG2e9nOWkurmQKb6hS86tAltU= 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=StTZf0hSjEv25WAJMAoRk6QOhOEtbeNw 14KebRXbfDOlwgHNPckOk4YhdIcanbqr/VnuzWopI8cNokqIdaSVtKn5GhXo2HRA 7HLIsUczZcTVeVdWqRaAc94UWI+qhzVc/ytHS2YDQ43TWZFZcLBu99ljNSULhDDG pZ3DSR7i4P4= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE18EE9D8; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:31:38 -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-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F31EDEE9CD; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:31:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Srinidhi Kaushik Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/3] push: add "--[no-]force-if-includes" References: <20200926114626.28823-1-shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com> <20200927141747.78047-1-shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:31:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200927141747.78047-1-shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com> (Srinidhi Kaushik's message of "Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:47:44 +0530") 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: 7560F356-01B0-11EB-B3F8-F0EA2EB3C613-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Srinidhi Kaushik writes: > Add a new option: "--force-if-includes" to "git-push" where forced > updates are allowed only if the tip of the remote-tracking ref has > been integrated locally, by verifying if the tip of the remote-tracking > ref -- on which a local branch has based on -- is reachable from at > least one of the "reflog" entries of the branch about to be updated > by force on the remote. https://travis-ci.org/github/git/git/jobs/730962458 is a build of 'seen' with this topic, and the same 'seen' without this topic is https://travis-ci.org/github/git/git/builds/730857608 that passes all the jobs. It is curious why one particular job fails while others in the same build is OK. I've seen this pattern for this topic in the past few days. The failure in t5533-push-cas.sh is sort-of understandable as the topic directly touches the area of the code the failing test exercises, but the failure in t3701 is totally unexpected. You can go down to the bottom of the page and click on the ci/print-test-failures.sh line to see which test piece fails. Anything rings a bell? Thanks.