Alexey Borzenkov schrieb: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Marius Storm-Olsen schrieb: >>> BTW, I ran all the tests (make /k test) before and after the >>> whole series, with msysgit 'devel' branch + plain git.git 'next', >>> and it turns out that 2 more tests pass after this series :) >> Sorry to disappoint you: these 2 tests only passed by chance. For a >> work-around see e95a73ef in mingw.git (it papers over an undetected >> racily-clean index). > > Maybe we should just implement nsec for mingw? The code is already almost there: First thing to do is to understand what is going on: There are other architectures that do not have nsec and that do *not* have the problem; why do we have a problem on Windows? If you cannot answer this question, an nsec solution would still just be "it happens to work", and not "it works by design". I think I had analyzed this particular case, and I understood it, but did not make notes why I found it satisfactory to just paper over the issue, and today I don't remember anymore. :-/ > Since we already reimplement stat/lstat/fstat it should be relatively > simple and we don't care about usage of mingw's stat. Don't forget utime(). > Do you want me to cook up a patch? I consider an answer to the question "why do we need nsec?" more important. BTW: t4130-apply-criss-cross-rename.sh fails quite often as well. This time it is because we fill in st_ino = 0 instead of some useful value. The test moves files around that happen to have identical sizes. After the operation, the dirty working tree could be noticed because st_ino differs from the index. But since we always set it to 0, it is not noticed. (That's my theory.) If you make a patch, can you think about this issue as well? -- Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html