Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Hopefully that [patch removing the - suffix] would help making >> Dscho's "what are the failed tests?" logic simpler. > > Of course. > > It also makes sure that those 2 hours I spent on

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> > Hi Ævar, >> > >> > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> > >> >> This might be me missing the point,

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Hi, On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > Hi Ævar, > > > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Johannes Schindelin > >> wrote: > >> > >> > The

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Ævar, > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Johannes Schindelin >> wrote: >> >> > The biggest problem with Strawberry Perl is that it is virtually >> >

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Hi Ævar, On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > > The biggest problem with Strawberry Perl is that it is virtually > > impossible to build the Subversion-Perl bindings using the Git for >

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Ævar, > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> I haven't used it myself (or any Windows thing) but people say good >> things about http://strawberryperl.com > > Ah yes. This comes up

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Hi Junio, On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Hopefully that [patch removing the - suffix] would help making > Dscho's "what are the failed tests?" logic simpler. Of course. It also makes sure that those 2 hours I spent on writing and perfecting the sed magic were spent in vain... ;-)

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Sverre Rabbelier writes: >>> I can't really recall, but I think it may have been related to me >>> doing something like this: >>> 1. Make a change, and start running tests (this takes a long time) >>> 2. Notice a failure, start fixing it, leave tests running to find >>>

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:36 AM Johannes Schindelin >> wrote: >> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > > Jeff King

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Hi Sverre, On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:36 AM Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Jeff King writes: > > > > Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:36 AM Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Jeff King writes: > > > Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but I have to wonder > > > if writing the pid in the first place is

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Hi Ævar, On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > I haven't used it myself (or any Windows thing) but people say good > things about http://strawberryperl.com Ah yes. This comes up frequently. Many a Git for Windows user pointed me into that direction. The biggest problem with

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Ævar, > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jeff King wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:48:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Hi, [Sverre: we are considering to remove the - suffix in test-results/, see more below.] On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but I have to wonder > > if writing the pid in the first place is

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Hi Ævar, On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jeff King wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:48:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > >> > -failed: $(patsubst trash,,$(patsubst directory.%,%.sh,$(wildcard > >> >

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:48:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > -failed: $(patsubst trash,,$(patsubst directory.%,%.sh,$(wildcard trash\ >> > directory.t[0-9]*))) >> > +failed: >> > + @failed=$$(cd

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:48:19PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > -failed: $(patsubst trash,,$(patsubst directory.%,%.sh,$(wildcard trash\ > > directory.t[0-9]*))) > > +failed: > > + @failed=$$(cd '$(TEST_RESULTS_DIRECTORY_SQ)' && \ > > + grep -l '^failed [1-9]'

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > While developing patch series, it is a good practice to run the test > suite from time to time, just to make sure that obvious bugs are caught > early. With complex patch series, it is common to run `make

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

Jeff King writes: > Hmm, interesting. Your approach seems reasonable, but I have to wonder > if writing the pid in the first place is sane. > > I started to write up my reasoning in this email, but realized it was > rapidly becoming the content of a commit message. So here is that

Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Note that we need to be careful to inspect only the *newest* entries in > test-results/: this directory contains files of the form > t--.counts and is only removed wholesale when running the > *entire* test suite, not when

[PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

While developing patch series, it is a good practice to run the test suite from time to time, just to make sure that obvious bugs are caught early. With complex patch series, it is common to run `make -j15 -k test`, i.e. run the tests in parallel and *not* stop at the first failing test but