On October 30, 2025 5:46 PM, I wrote:

To: 'Kristoffer Haugsbakk' <redacted>; 'Junio C

Hamano'

[off-list ref]
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [BUGS] Git v2.51.2 on NonStop5

On October 30, 2025 4:26 PM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025, at 20:42, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025, at 18:40, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote:

quoted

[snip]

Would it make sense for maintenance releases to have a small release
candidate pre-release?  Both of these maintenance releases have had
issues.

Well, that is usually called "the tip of 'master'".  Has NonStop been
having issues with the tip of 'master'?  For how long?  Why haven't we
heard about it at all?  After things are merged there (which requires
them to be cooking in 'next'---oh, has NonStop been having issues with
'next'?  For how long?), only fixes are chosen and merged to 'maint'
to be the next maintenance release.
...
I doubt any pre-release on 'maint' has much value in that anybody who
are not testing the tip of 'master' would not be testing it either.

You are probably 99.9% likely to be correct.

We tried setting up a CI/CD process for git on NonStop. The problem is that
we use Jenkins, which gets triggered each time a change is made on a

branch.

The actual difficulty is that a single run takes more than a day. Once the
committer adds each commit to a branch, we end up with a queue that is
2-3 weeks long, so end up not running a continuous process. Instead, we
run about 1 a week, which should catch things. The difficulty is with the
latest release is that 2.25.2 came out before our cycle and the breaks were
in there because of changes to one test that just did not end up dequeuing
in time. NonStop is building and testing fine now after Peff's suggestion

on

SHELL_PATH, but that was only apparent at 2.52.2. 2.51.1 did not have this
issue with our inadvertent use of ksh to run each test script.

The current CI/CD run passed with only t9001 failing as expected. I am
wondering whether we could add a switch like SENDMAIL=NoThanks. There
is an object called sendmail on the box I am on, but it is not a compliant
port - someone tried this decades ago.