Re: [PATCH v8 0/6] set-head/fetch remote/HEAD updates, small change from v7

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 23:05, Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:18:44AM +0200, Bence Ferdinandy wrote:
>> Thanks for the heads up! I see that indeed the failing output is different than
>> what I have locally (e.g. no "apis/HEAD -> apis/main" in any of the test files
>> I have). On the other hand I can't reproduce it so I will need some help with
>> this I think.
>
> I similarly could not reproduce it (I ran 'make test' on this topic
> before integrating it into 'seen', and it passed, otherwise I wouldn't
> have picked it up).
>
> I am not sure what the differences are. The 'ci' directory has some more
> bits on how the various suites are run, and the '.github/workflows'
> directory has some more bits still.

I managed to reproduce it in docker once, but I'm not sure how and I wasn't
able to do it again ... On the other hand (using some printf) I managed to
figure out that `fetch --multiple --all` is running both in the CI and locally
and the difference is actually what we see in the output (so no error per se).
E.g. in t5505.55 update, if you run it locally refs/remotes/apis/HEAD does not
exist, while in the CI it does.

I'm not sure why this difference exists yet, so I'm hoping someone might have
an idea. I'll keep poking around in the meanwhile.

Thanks,
Bence





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux