Re: [PATCH 0/2] t/lib-git-svn.sh: improve svnserve tests with parallel make test
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:40:47 -0500
- From: Todd Zullinger <tmz@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] t/lib-git-svn.sh: improve svnserve tests with parallel make test
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Todd Zullinger wrote:
These tests are not run by default nor are they enabled in travis-ci. I
don't know how much testing they get in user or other packager builds.
I've been slowly increasing the test suite usage in fedora builds. I
ran into this while testing locally with parallel make test. The
official fedora builds don't run in parallel (yet), as even before I ran
into this issue, builds on the fedora builders randomly failed too
often. I'm hoping to eventually enable parallel tests by default
though, since it's so much faster.
This background could go in the commit message for patch 2, but it
also speaks for itself as an obviously good change so I could go
Heh. If there's something in there in particular that seems useful, I
can certainly add it. I'm not sure what parts of this text would be
beneficial to someone down the line though.
I usually err on the 'too much information' side of commit messages.
I'm happy that it's much harder to do that here. I'd rather have to
skim a long message than wonder about the motivation for a change.
I'm not sure if there's any objection to changing the variable needed to
enable the tests from SVNSERVE_PORT to GIT_TEST_SVNSERVE. The way
SVNSERVE_PORT is set in this patch should allow the port to be set
explicitly, in case someone requires that -- and they understand that it
can fail if running parallel tests, of course. Whether that's a
feature or a bug, I'm not sure. :)
micronit: can this just say something like
Patch 2 is the important one --- see that one for rationale.
Patch 1 is an optional preparatory style cleanup.
next time? That way, you get an automatic guarantee that all the
important information is available in "git log" output to people who
need it later.
Yeah, I'll try to remember that. I started this without the
whitespace cleanup and as I was writing in the single patch
description that I didn't think the whitespace cleanup was warranted,
I talked myself into doing it as the prep patch. :)
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean
it's not incredibly stupid.
-- Demotivators (www.despair.com)