On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Jim Meyering <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks again for the patch, but if I were to use it, the timeout > would be so long that the test would mistakenly pass > (the timeout would not trigger) even if the bug were reintroduced. > Instead, I've rewritten the test to make it less sensitive to the > actual hardware used to run it. Please let me know if this works > for you:
I've pushed that change.
