From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C4CC433FE for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 09:21:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230123AbiKBJVF (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2022 05:21:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57532 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231366AbiKBJUj (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2022 05:20:39 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E68352BB for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 02:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 9861 invoked by uid 109); 2 Nov 2022 09:18:30 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 09:18:30 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 4148 invoked by uid 111); 2 Nov 2022 09:18:31 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 05:18:31 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 05:18:29 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Derrick Stolee , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] t5551: be less strict about the number of credential warnings Message-ID: References: <221101.86a65b5q9q.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 04:42:13AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > As I said, I had tried to mostly leave patch 2 alone to avoid derailing > Dscho's attempt to fix things. But somehow things got derailed anyway, > so maybe we can just all agree on this patch and move on with our lives? By the way, I think you (or somebody?) mentioned elsewhere in the thread that it's possible the first patch fixes things by itself. I would also be content to just apply the first one and see if CI improves. Of course, when I just pushed all this out to CI, it flaked independently on both osx (looks like racy p4 stuff) and fedora (network dropout failed to set up the container). Sigh. -Peff