* Subject: [PATCH 0/2] v2.53.0-rc0 test failures on cygwin
@ 2026-01-16 20:39 Ramsay Jones
2026-01-18 13:59 ` Ramsay Jones
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ramsay Jones @ 2026-01-16 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GIT Mailing-list; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin, Junio C Hamano, Patrick Steinhardt
This cycle brings a t9700 test failure on cygwin, see patch #1.
The second patch was owed from the last cycle, sorry about not
getting to it sooner, but it is _still_ a puzzle. ;)
I have tested these patches on Linux without issue. On cygwin
the t0610 test passes with '--stress' which it failed earlier
and the t9700 test has only been tested by hand.
Directly after sending these patches, I will start a '-j8' run
of the full testsuite on cygwin and let you know if it fails
(it should not!). ;)
[When I run the testsuite like this on cygwin I can't use the
laptop for anything else and the keyboard gets _very_ toasty!]
Thanks
Ramsay Jones
Ramsay Jones (2):
t9700/test.pl: fix path type expectation on cygwin
t0610-reftable-basics: mitigate a flaky test on cygwin
t/t0610-reftable-basics.sh | 2 +-
t/t9700/test.pl | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
2.52.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Subject: [PATCH 0/2] v2.53.0-rc0 test failures on cygwin
2026-01-16 20:39 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] v2.53.0-rc0 test failures on cygwin Ramsay Jones
@ 2026-01-18 13:59 ` Ramsay Jones
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ramsay Jones @ 2026-01-18 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GIT Mailing-list; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin, Junio C Hamano, Patrick Steinhardt
On 16/01/2026 8:39 pm, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>
>
> This cycle brings a t9700 test failure on cygwin, see patch #1.
> The second patch was owed from the last cycle, sorry about not
> getting to it sooner, but it is _still_ a puzzle. ;)
>
> I have tested these patches on Linux without issue. On cygwin
> the t0610 test passes with '--stress' which it failed earlier
> and the t9700 test has only been tested by hand.
>
> Directly after sending these patches, I will start a '-j8' run
> of the full testsuite on cygwin and let you know if it fails
> (it should not!). ;)
Just for avoidance of doubt, this test passed without issue:
$ ./git version
git version 2.53.0.rc0.2.gc56c9e3a41
$
[ie. v2.53.0-rc0 + these two patches]
$ tail test-out1
All tests successful.
Files=1028, Tests=32260, 2945 wallclock secs (22.75 usr 64.42 sys + 7655.90 cusr 10222.07 csys = 17965.14 CPU)
Result: PASS
make clean-except-prove-cache
make[2]: Entering directory '/home/ramsay/git/t'
rm -f -r 'chainlinttmp'
rm -f -r 'trash directory'.*
rm -f -r valgrind/bin
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/ramsay/git/t'
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/ramsay/git/t'
$
> [When I run the testsuite like this on cygwin I can't use the
> laptop for anything else and the keyboard gets _very_ toasty!]
Now I can try a lower '-j' value to find a happy medium (although
no '-j' argument leads to approx. 4 hours for a test run, which is
already better than 6+ hours for my old laptop).
Thanks.
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-01-18 13:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-01-16 20:39 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] v2.53.0-rc0 test failures on cygwin Ramsay Jones
2026-01-18 13:59 ` Ramsay Jones
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox