On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 04:24:50PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Okay, fair enough, thanks. I should finally get to this issue either on Friday or early next week. Patrick
