Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 06:27:33AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> If this is causing problems for folks I'd say we can do the below change >> for now. It's of course only a stop-gap solution until I find the time >> to debug this, which should be later this week or early next week. >> >> Patrick >> >> diff --git a/t/t0610-reftable-basics.sh b/t/t0610-reftable-basics.sh >> index 2d951c8ceb..ad7bb39b79 100755 >> --- a/t/t0610-reftable-basics.sh >> +++ b/t/t0610-reftable-basics.sh >> @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ test_expect_success 'ref transaction: retry acquiring tables.list lock' ' >> ) >> ' >> >> -test_expect_success 'ref transaction: many concurrent writers' ' >> +test_expect_success !WINDOWS 'ref transaction: many concurrent writers' ' >> test_when_finished "rm -rf repo" && >> git init repo && >> ( > > IMHO we can live with a flaky test for a little while. It's not like > it's the only one. ;) And hopefully your digging turns up a real > solution. > > It also sounds from subsequent discussion that Josh's issue was on > Linux, so it wouldn't help there. That's true. WINDOWS prereq would not help there, even though it would hide the breakage from CI.
