From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2016-08-30 19:15:29
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but I have to wonder
if writing the pid in the first place is sane.
I started to write up my reasoning in this email, but realized it was
rapidly becoming the content of a commit message. So here is that
commit.
Sounds sensible; if this makes Dscho's "which ones failed in the
previous run" simpler, that is even better ;-)
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden> Date: 2016-08-31 10:38:51
Hi,
[Sverre: we are considering to remove the -<pid> suffix in test-results/,
see more below.]
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but I have to wonder
if writing the pid in the first place is sane.
I started to write up my reasoning in this email, but realized it was
rapidly becoming the content of a commit message. So here is that
commit.
Sounds sensible; if this makes Dscho's "which ones failed in the
previous run" simpler, that is even better ;-)
I did not have the time to dig further before now. There must have been a
good reason why we append the PID.
Sverre, you added that code in 2d84e9f (Modify test-lib.sh to output stats
to t/test-results/*, 2008-06-08): any idea why the -<pid> suffix was
needed?
Ciao,
Dscho
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:36 AM Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but I have to wonder
if writing the pid in the first place is sane.
I started to write up my reasoning in this email, but realized it was
rapidly becoming the content of a commit message. So here is that
commit.
Sounds sensible; if this makes Dscho's "which ones failed in the
previous run" simpler, that is even better ;-)
I did not have the time to dig further before now. There must have been a
good reason why we append the PID.
Sverre, you added that code in 2d84e9f (Modify test-lib.sh to output stats
to t/test-results/*, 2008-06-08): any idea why the -<pid> suffix was
needed?
I can't really recall, but I think it may have been related to me
doing something like this:
1. Make a change, and start running tests (this takes a long time)
2. Notice a failure, start fixing it, leave tests running to find
further failures
3. Finish fix, first tests are still running, start another run in a
new terminal (possibly of just the one failed test I was fixing) to
see if the fix worked.
Without the pid, the second run would clobber the results from the first run.
If only past-me was more rigorous about writing good commit messages :P.
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden> Date: 2016-09-01 08:28:18
Hi Sverre,
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:36 AM Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but I have to wonder
if writing the pid in the first place is sane.
I started to write up my reasoning in this email, but realized it was
rapidly becoming the content of a commit message. So here is that
commit.
Sounds sensible; if this makes Dscho's "which ones failed in the
previous run" simpler, that is even better ;-)
I did not have the time to dig further before now. There must have been a
good reason why we append the PID.
Sverre, you added that code in 2d84e9f (Modify test-lib.sh to output stats
to t/test-results/*, 2008-06-08): any idea why the -<pid> suffix was
needed?
I can't really recall, but I think it may have been related to me
doing something like this:
1. Make a change, and start running tests (this takes a long time)
2. Notice a failure, start fixing it, leave tests running to find
further failures
3. Finish fix, first tests are still running, start another run in a
new terminal (possibly of just the one failed test I was fixing) to
see if the fix worked.
Without the pid, the second run would clobber the results from the first run.
If only past-me was more rigorous about writing good commit messages :P.
:-)
Would present-you disagree with stripping off the -<pid> suffix, based on
your recollections?
Ciao,
Dscho
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:36 AM Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but I have to wonder
if writing the pid in the first place is sane.
I started to write up my reasoning in this email, but realized it was
rapidly becoming the content of a commit message. So here is that
commit.
Sounds sensible; if this makes Dscho's "which ones failed in the
previous run" simpler, that is even better ;-)
I did not have the time to dig further before now. There must have been a
good reason why we append the PID.
Sverre, you added that code in 2d84e9f (Modify test-lib.sh to output stats
to t/test-results/*, 2008-06-08): any idea why the -<pid> suffix was
needed?
I can't really recall, but I think it may have been related to me
doing something like this:
1. Make a change, and start running tests (this takes a long time)
2. Notice a failure, start fixing it, leave tests running to find
further failures
3. Finish fix, first tests are still running, start another run in a
new terminal (possibly of just the one failed test I was fixing) to
see if the fix worked.
Without the pid, the second run would clobber the results from the first run.
If only past-me was more rigorous about writing good commit messages :P.
:-)
Would present-you disagree with stripping off the -<pid> suffix, based on
your recollections?
No objections, I think it should be fine. If anyone uncovers a
particularly compelling reason later on, it's only a commit away :).
--
Cheers,
Sverre Rabbelier