Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: enable sequential test execution for t9113 and 9126

[Junio C Hamano]

Eric Wong  writes:

> Junio C Hamano  wrote:
>> Lars Schneider  writes:
>> >> On 19 May 2016, at 19:11, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
>> >> Eric Wong  writes:
>> >> 
>> >>> Anyways, how about making the tests run on separate ports and
>> >>> not worry about serializing them at all?
>> >> 
>> >> Yeah, that does sound like a more sensible approach.
>> >
>> > Makes sense. However, it's not something I will tackle soon.
>> > Would you be willing to pick up $gmane/295048 (the first patch) as is 
>> > and drop $gmane/295050 (the patch discussed here)? Then the majority
>> > of Git SVN tests would run on Travis CI.
>> 
>> I am not sure if adding git-svn alone would be a good change.
>> Wouldn't it invite false failures from running these conflicting
>> tests at the same time?
>
> The problematic tests won't run unless *_PORT variables are set;
> which AFAIK they aren't, yet.

Ahh, OK that is perfect.

Thanks!
--
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

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: enable sequential test execution for t9113 and 9126

[Eric Wong]

Junio C Hamano  wrote:
> Lars Schneider  writes:
> >> On 19 May 2016, at 19:11, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
> >> Eric Wong  writes:
> >> 
> >>> Anyways, how about making the tests run on separate ports and
> >>> not worry about serializing them at all?
> >> 
> >> Yeah, that does sound like a more sensible approach.
> >
> > Makes sense. However, it's not something I will tackle soon.
> > Would you be willing to pick up $gmane/295048 (the first patch) as is 
> > and drop $gmane/295050 (the patch discussed here)? Then the majority
> > of Git SVN tests would run on Travis CI.
> 
> I am not sure if adding git-svn alone would be a good change.
> Wouldn't it invite false failures from running these conflicting
> tests at the same time?

The problematic tests won't run unless *_PORT variables are set;
which AFAIK they aren't, yet.
--
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

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: enable sequential test execution for t9113 and 9126

[Junio C Hamano]

Lars Schneider  writes:

>> On 19 May 2016, at 19:11, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
>> 
>> Eric Wong  writes:
>> 
>>> Anyways, how about making the tests run on separate ports and
>>> not worry about serializing them at all?
>> 
>> Yeah, that does sound like a more sensible approach.
>
> Makes sense. However, it's not something I will tackle soon.
> Would you be willing to pick up $gmane/295048 (the first patch) as is 
> and drop $gmane/295050 (the patch discussed here)? Then the majority
> of Git SVN tests would run on Travis CI.

I am not sure if adding git-svn alone would be a good change.
Wouldn't it invite false failures from running these conflicting
tests at the same time?
--
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

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: enable sequential test execution for t9113 and 9126

[Eric Wong]

Lars Schneider  wrote:
> > On 19 May 2016, at 19:11, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
> > Eric Wong  writes:
> > 
> >> Anyways, how about making the tests run on separate ports and
> >> not worry about serializing them at all?
> > 
> > Yeah, that does sound like a more sensible approach.
> 
> Makes sense. However, it's not something I will tackle soon.
> Would you be willing to pick up $gmane/295048 (the first patch) as is 
> and drop $gmane/295050 (the patch discussed here)? Then the majority
> of Git SVN tests would run on Travis CI.

Sure, patch 1/2 is signed-off and pushed to my repo.  Thanks.

I'll try to take a look at parallelizing the other tests instead
of marking them sequential some other time.

Junio:

The following changes since commit 3916adf9978b020f9a9b165f4c1c109046899560:

  Sync with 2.8.3 (2016-05-18 15:33:57 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://bogomips.org/git-svn.git svn-travis

for you to fetch changes up to e7e9f5e7a1d39bf210c59428cd2a98f0a6abba0b:

  travis-ci: enable Git SVN tests t91xx on Linux (2016-05-22 20:20:28 +)


Lars Schneider (1):
  travis-ci: enable Git SVN tests t91xx on Linux

 .travis.yml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
--
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

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: enable sequential test execution for t9113 and 9126

[Lars Schneider]

> On 19 May 2016, at 19:11, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
> 
> Eric Wong  writes:
> 
>> Anyways, how about making the tests run on separate ports and
>> not worry about serializing them at all?
> 
> Yeah, that does sound like a more sensible approach.

Makes sense. However, it's not something I will tackle soon.
Would you be willing to pick up $gmane/295048 (the first patch) as is 
and drop $gmane/295050 (the patch discussed here)? Then the majority
of Git SVN tests would run on Travis CI.

Thanks,
Lars
--
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

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: enable sequential test execution for t9113 and 9126

[Junio C Hamano]

Eric Wong  writes:

> Anyways, how about making the tests run on separate ports and
> not worry about serializing them at all?

Yeah, that does sound like a more sensible approach.
--
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

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: enable sequential test execution for t9113 and 9126

[Eric Wong]

larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote:
> Enable t9113 and 9126 by defining the SVNSERVER_PORT. Since both tests
> open the same port during execution, they cannot run in parallel. Add
> a ".seq.sh" suffix to the test files and teach "prove" to run them
> sequentially.

Interesting, I guess I forgot the problem because had some
rules in config.mak to serialize them for many years, now :x

Anyways, how about making the tests run on separate ports and
not worry about serializing them at all?  Maybe there was a
reason we didn't do this years ago, but I forget...

But probably the best (but I guess more difficult) option is to
get svnserve+apache to do socket activation off a random port
bound by a parent process at startup.
--
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