René Scharfe <> writes:

> Am 28.07.2012 20:46, schrieb Ramsay Jones:
>> Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the final failure in
>> I tried, among other things, to provoke a failure thus:
>>      $ for i in $(seq 100); do
>>      > if ! ./ -i -v; then
>>      >     break;
>>      > fi
>>      > done
>>      $
>> but, apart from chewing on the cpu for about 50 minutes, it didn't result
>> in a failure. :(
>> However, after looking at test 59, it seems to me to be a stale (redundant)
>> test. So, patch #2 removes that test! :-D [I wish I could reproduce the
>> failure because I don't like not knowing why it failed, but ...]
> Removing the test makes sense, since it was needed for --ext-grep
> only, is relatively expensive and a bit fragile (by depending on
> I'm slightly worried about the non-reproducible failure,
> though. Perhaps a timing issue is involved and chances are higher if
> you leave out the option -v?

Thanks for a comment.  I agree that removing the test makes sense,
and I also agree that the non reproducibleness is worrying (the
latter is more important).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to