On May 5, 2015 6:01 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > We definitely have an issue with localhost. When forcing the DNS resolver to > > return 127.0.0.1, we pass 1-16 then 17 fails as I expected to happen based > > on my DNS futzing. Heads up that this test is not-surprisingly sensitive to > > DNS problems. My environment is still in a messy state where I can reproduce > > the original problem so it might be a useful moment for me to find a way to > > modify the test script to harden it. Any suggestion on that score > > (as in where and roughly how it might be made more reliable)? > > I do not think this counts as a useful "suggestion", but is this > "resolver does not work for local as expected" case even worth > protecting our tests against? I see your point, but after having spent "way too much time" away from the $DAYJOB tracking this down, I was hoping to catch the root cause earlier next time. Perhaps adding a test step validating that localhost comes back with a reasonable value - whatever that may be in context. I'm just not sure what the test really needs at its heart to run properly - obviously the IP address of the system as visible in our DMZ is not working for the test. -- 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