Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Oh, I missed this email thread. I am still working on a stable > Travis-CI integration and I ran into this issue a few times. I > fixed it in my (not yet published) patch with an additional > function "test_must_fail_or_sigpipe" that I've used for all tests > affected by this issue. Modifying the "test_must_fail" function > seemed too risky for me as I don't understand all possible > implications. However, if you don't see a problem then this is > fine with me. It's not that I don't see a problem at all. You constructed a good summary of the issues in three bullet points, that lead me to think that it is the right approach to tweak the way the tests evaluate the outcome, but then nothing came out of the discussion, so I sent out a "how about doing it this way" to make sure this topic will not be forgotten. There is nothing more to it, and "how about..." is in no way final. There obviously are pros and cons between introducing your new helper to mark the ones that are allowed to catch SIGPIPE and changing all occurrences of test_must_fail. I do not have a strong opinion yet, but it needs to be discussed and decided. -- 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