Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Torstem Bögershausen [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
the term FREEBSD may be too generic to point out a single feature
in an OS distributution.
Following your investigations, it may even be possible that
other systems adapt this "feature"?
How about
LAZY_DIR_MTIME_UPDATE
(or similar)
This feature was added in 1998, so yes there's a chance it has spread
to a few fbsd derivatives (not sure if openbsd or netbsd is close
enough and they ever exchange changes). But I'd rather wait for the
second OS to expose the same feature before renaming it.
I think a name based on the observed behaviour ("feature") would be
more appropriate because I'd be more worried about us finding other
glitches we see (initially) only on FBSD. People who need to adjust
tests that use the same FBSD prereq would have to wonder which
prereq-skip is due to which glitch.
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:04:44PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Torstem Bögershausen [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
the term FREEBSD may be too generic to point out a single feature
in an OS distributution.
Following your investigations, it may even be possible that
other systems adapt this "feature"?
How about
LAZY_DIR_MTIME_UPDATE
(or similar)
This feature was added in 1998, so yes there's a chance it has spread
to a few fbsd derivatives (not sure if openbsd or netbsd is close
enough and they ever exchange changes). But I'd rather wait for the
second OS to expose the same feature before renaming it.
I think a name based on the observed behaviour ("feature") would be
more appropriate because I'd be more worried about us finding other
glitches we see (initially) only on FBSD. People who need to adjust
tests that use the same FBSD prereq would have to wonder which
prereq-skip is due to which glitch.
OK how about this squashed in? The name was taken from fbsd definition
IN_LAZYMOD.
Off topic. Since I found this macro defined twice, in ext2 and ufs,
but not in zfs (found its source!), I assume zfs does not have this
particular feature (but I didn't test it). Untracked cache may be more
effecient there.
-- 8< --
diff --git a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
index 08fc586..8bb048a 100755
--- a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
+++ b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
@@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ test_expect_success 'create/modify files, some of which are gitignored' '
rm base
'
-test_expect_success FREEBSD 'Work around lazy mtime update' '
+test_expect_success LAZYMOD 'Work around lazy mtime update' '
ls -ld . >/dev/null
'
diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index 3c730a2..1fc5266 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -962,7 +962,7 @@ case $(uname -s) in
test_set_prereq GREP_STRIPS_CR
;;
*FreeBSD*)
- test_set_prereq FREEBSD
+ test_set_prereq LAZYMOD
test_set_prereq POSIXPERM
test_set_prereq BSLASHPSPEC
test_set_prereq EXECKEEPSPID
-- 8< --
--
Duy