Subject: RE: [BUGS] Git v2.51.2 on NonStop5

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 10:09:56 -0400

On October 30, 2025 5:46 PM, I wrote:
>To: 'Kristoffer Haugsbakk' <[email-masked]>; 'Junio C
Hamano'
><[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [BUGS] Git v2.51.2 on NonStop5
>
>On October 30, 2025 4:26 PM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
>>On Thu, Oct 30, 2025, at 20:42, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <[email-masked]> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025, at 18:40, [email-masked] wrote:
>>>>>[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.