On Fri, Dec 14 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > this morning Travis sounded quite a few claxons: > https://travis-ci.org/git/git/builds/467839114 > > It seems that quite a few tests in t5601-clone.sh fail, the first of which > reading like this: > > -- snip -- > expecting success: > git clone myhost:src ssh-clone && > expect_ssh "-o SendEnv=GIT_PROTOCOL" myhost src > > ++ git clone myhost:src ssh-clone > Cloning into 'ssh-clone'... > ++ expect_ssh '-o SendEnv=GIT_PROTOCOL' myhost src > ++ test_when_finished ' > (cd "$TRASH_DIRECTORY" && rm -f ssh-expect ssh-output.munged && >ssh-output) > ' > ++ test 0 = 0 > ++ test_cleanup='{ > (cd "$TRASH_DIRECTORY" && rm -f ssh-expect ssh-output.munged && >ssh-output) > > } && (exit "$eval_ret"); eval_ret=$?; :' > ++ case "$#" in > ++ echo 'ssh: -o SendEnv=GIT_PROTOCOL myhost git-upload-pack '\''src'\''' > ++ cd '/Users/vsts/agent/2.144.0/work/1/s/t/trash directory.t5601-clone' > ++ sed 's/ssh: -o SendEnv=GIT_PROTOCOL /ssh: /' > ++ mv ssh-output.munged ssh-output > ++ test_cmp ssh-expect ssh-output > ++ diff -u ssh-expect ssh-output > --- ssh-expect 2018-12-14 04:30:28.000000000 +0000 > +++ ssh-output 2018-12-14 04:30:28.000000000 +0000 > @@ -1 +1 @@ > -ssh: -o SendEnv=GIT_PROTOCOL myhost git-upload-pack 'src' > +ssh: myhost git-upload-pack 'src' > error: last command exited with $?=1 > not ok 37 - clone myhost:src uses ssh > # > # git clone myhost:src ssh-clone && > # expect_ssh "-o SendEnv=GIT_PROTOCOL" myhost src > # > -- snap -- > > I've bisected this down to 3cd325f7be (Merge branch > 'js/protocol-advertise-multi' into pu, 2018-12-14), a merge, meaning that > two topic branches do not play nice with one another. > > Staring at the breakage and the changes involved, I suspected that > 391985d7c7 (tests: mark & fix tests broken under > GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION=1, 2018-12-13) does not play well with the > merged 24c10f7473 (protocol: advertise multiple supported versions, > 2018-11-16), and indeed, reverting 391985d7c7 on top of 3cd325f7be lets > t5601 pass again. > > It would appear to me, then, that these two patches step on each others' > toes. Josh, Ævar, what should be done about this? Looking at the two the breakage is on my side, but I got away with it before. I'm re-rolling mine for this & other fixes, and will make sure the two play well together. Thanks.
