"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> IOW, I do not see it explained clearly why this change is needed on any single >> platform---so "that issue may be shared by others, too" >> is a bit premature thing for me to listen to and understand, as "that issue" is >> quite unclear to me. > > v4 might be a little better. The issue seems to be specific to > NonStop that it's PIPE mechanism needs to have setbuf(pipe,NULL) > called for git to be happy. The default behaviour appears to be > different on NonStop from other platforms from our testing. We get > hung up waiting on pipes unless this is done. I am afraid that that is not a "diagnosis" enough to allow us moving forward. We get hung up because...? When the process that has the other end of pipe open exits, NonStop does not close the pipe properly? Or NonStop does not flush the data buffered in the pipe? Would it help if a compat wrapper that does setbuf(fd, NULL) immediately before closing the fd, or some other more targetted mechanism, is used only on NonStop, for example? Potentially megabytes of data can pass thru a pipe, and if the platform bug affects only at the tail end of the transfer, marking the pipe not to buffer at all at the beginning is too big a hammer to work it around. With the explanation given so far, this still smells more like "we have futzed around without understanding why, and this happens to work." It may be good enough for your purpose of making progress (after all, I'd imagine that you'd need to work this around one way or another to hunt for and fix more issues on the platform), but it does not sound like "we know what the problem is, and this is the best workaround for that", which is what we want if it wants to become part of the official codebase.
