On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Even if the tested program crashes, it is Ok to test them inside > expect_failure, so I'd suggest not commenting the first two out. OK, the reason why I didn't want to do that is because the test appears to succeed on windows when it crashes. But you might not care too much about that ;) > But running the tests with the first patch applied to the same base as > where v1 was applied gives this, which is a more serious issue: > > $ sh t9301-fast-export.sh 2>&1 | tail -n 2 > * still have 4 known breakage(s) > * failed 6 among remaining 15 test(s) > > In other words, the changes to the set-up part seem to break unrelated > tests. Why can such an update supersede the previous one? That's weird. I did test it properly before I applied it, and I don't recall having any failures on Linux. On Windows, I get lots of failures with vanilla git.git, and I don't have access to my Linux-box right now, so I can't easily verify this until that box comes up again. I did see that another patch (ebeec7d) has made it's way into the test since I submitted it - perhaps these two collided? But OK, I'll have a look at it when that box comes up, and see if I can come up with a good patch-series. -- Erik "kusma" Faye-Lund kusmabite@xxxxxxxxx (+47) 986 59 656 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
