Subject: Re: [PATCH] test: make SYMLINKS prerequisite more robust

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 09:31:05 -0800

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>>> I wonder if something like this is in order?
>>
>> I don't have much to contribute on that front, but this is really
>> missing some "why", this worked before, why is it failing now? Do we
>> have any idea.
>
> Your guess is as good as mine.  I do not do Windows.

This morning, I notice that those CI jobs I ran last night that
failed with "whoa, windows tests are somehow reporting that symlinks
are available but not really" issue the patch in this thread were
attempting to address has passed even for branches like 'master' and
'next' that do not yet have it, and it seems to be because you
re-run these failed jobs.

Whatever magic you used to fix these failing tests, thanks.

Do you have an insight on why and how these were failing?  The patch
in this thread was a band-aid without knowing why all of a sudden
"ln -s x y && test -h y" started passing (while compat/mingw.c still
says readlink() is not supported).  If we know that such a breakage
is not expected, we can drop this workaroun, which would be great.

Thanks.