On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:08:12PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:31:38PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > I did wonder what will happen if Windows learns to daemonize() the > > auto-gc. I don't think we'll get an immediate test failure, but this > > test will become racy again. But this time we'll actually notice the > > racy failure, because the "ls" will report extra packs if it runs before > > the background gc does. At which point we can revisit this. > > Dscho said that it would take significant effort to make daemonize() > work on Windows, so I guess it will take a while before we'll have to > revisit this. Yeah, that's what I figured. I mostly just didn't want to leave a time-bomb for future developers. > > I guess we could probably grep for the "in the background" message from > > the parent gc. OTOH, maybe it is not even worth it. > > That wouldn't work at the moment, because auto gc says that it will go > to the background even on Windows. Ah, OK. Let's not worry about it, then. I think the way your test is constructed we should get a racy failure not long after the change, and your comments would lead people to realize what is going on. -Peff