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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60C4C388F7 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 21:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BF5206B5 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 21:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="hwMbeFyl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727275AbgKJVNp (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:13:45 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:62631 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726179AbgKJVNo (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:13:44 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FB49B0C4; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:13:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=zmk2eY9taZwJioAFCPrPhfX2lp8=; b=hwMbeF yl5zJbTsC+xbE3+eZNe7vlQ9FrFku9lzCgOY664AMxowCyDIYAkc936m5ryaVEDf M7BiiKexM9vX9owt9yxxRt/w0Dl1m/8qkdS/o3hrQNPm0hoL9NFjvG3G0T/hyaOc EbzxDrp85EjMNNFZ759Tb+xUDUsQMcnRgNyN0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=W4w3dkOkyyDFT2lZVTQx7AiDlfJXUNEf +FOJN2/WvrkQNfQ0VjiLRPQMUvgD20ZHqCxOnT1eZxhSv6UDnCC9qyhejujkOqBm sXEjXfJ6KKJXy4zMdW4THXoVsADVv5THkN0I0VqE3JEd7HXlA3EbhwO5kYwDSGwI zX3SdkDQZ0c= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9012A9B0C3; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:13:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18DCE9B0C1; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:13:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jiang Xin Cc: Jeff King , Git List , Johannes Schindelin , Jiang Xin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] t5411: consistent result for proc-receive broken test References: <20201109105846.64303-1-zhiyou.jx@alibaba-inc.com> <20201109231246.GA677345@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:13:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:00:46 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9C1F4AAA-2399-11EB-BE4A-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Jiang Xin writes: > >> Thanks Peff for pointing the root cause. Will use the "gently" forms >> of packet_write_fmt() and packet_flush() in patch v3. > > Another thing I noticed. Its tests are based on a codebase where > master is called main, which means it is not designed to be usable > with the 'master' or 'maint' track. > > Because the topic is no longer "just apply a band-aid to paper over > test flakeyness" but is fixing the codepath that matters in real > user experience, I'd prefer to see it applicable even to the > maintenance track. I've queued these patches on top of js/default-branch-name-adjust-t5411; that makes the topic mergeable to 'master' but not to 'maint'. Perhaps that is good enough, as the maintenance track of today would become obsolete by the end of this year. Thanks.