On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:48:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > > > Yuck; please discard the previous one. write_in_full() side is also > > writing into that process, so we should do the same. > > OK, without these two, and with the "true" filter that does not read > anything reinstated in the test script, t0021 used to die > > i=0; while sh t0021-conversion.sh; do i=$(( $i + 1 )); done > > after 150 iteration or so for me. With these two, it seems to go on > without breaking (I bored after 1000 iterations), so I'd declare it > good enough ;-)
Your revised patch 2 looks good to me. I think you could test it more reliably by simply adding a larger file, like: test-genrandom foo $((128 * 1024 + 1)) >big && echo 'big filter=epipe' >.gitattributes && git config filter.epipe.clean true && git add big The worst case if you get the size of the pipe buffer too small is that the test will erroneously pass, but that is OK. As long as one person has a reasonable-sized buffer, they will complain to the list eventually. :) -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
