Re: [PATCH 0/2] CI: don't fail OSX tests due to brew v.s. perforce.com mis-matchy

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón" <carenas@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, "Eric Sunshine" <sunshine@sunshineco.com>,
	"Derrick Stolee" <stolee@gmail.com>,
	"SZEDER Gábor" <szeder.dev@gmail.com>,
	"Taylor Blau" <me@ttaylorr.com>,
	"Johannes Schindelin" <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] CI: don't fail OSX tests due to brew v.s. perforce.com mis-matchy
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:39:35 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq35i6f754.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220421213024.xzkzuy3l7q5assxo@carlos-mbp.lan> ("Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n=22's?= message of "Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:30:24 -0700")

Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:53:50PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> For the past days we've again had CI failures due to "brew install"
>> detecting a SHA-256 mismatch when trying to install the perforce
>
> Since the only reason why that is a concern is because it aborts the
> rest of the run and is a recurring problem, wouldn't it be better to
> tell the script to continue regardless and therefore skip all perforce
> tests?
>
> Sure, there is a window where that integration could be broken which
> will be only visible once the perforce cask gets fixed and perforce
> installs again, but wouldn't that be less intrusive and overall safer
> than the currently proposed change?

Good suggestion.  Care to come up with an alternative patch (or
two)?

Thanks.