Re: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

2017-05-20 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramsay Jones writes: > I test on 32-bit Linux from time to time, and tonight's 'pu' > branch fails t4202.44, t6007.2,5-6,12-13,16, t6012.2-11, > t6111.2-65. I bisected the t4202 failure to a merge commit > (99d31e1378, merge branch 'jc/name-rev-lw-tag') and I spotted

Re: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

2017-05-20 Thread Ramsay Jones
On 20/05/17 21:36, Eric Wong wrote: > This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output" > on 32-bit x86. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Wong > --- > This is for pu, I'm still using the machine I used git with in 2005 :) > > builtin/name-rev.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed,

[PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

2017-05-20 Thread Eric Wong
This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output" on 32-bit x86. Signed-off-by: Eric Wong --- This is for pu, I'm still using the machine I used git with in 2005 :) builtin/name-rev.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git