Junio C Hamano wrote: > By the way, Jonathan, with dbedf8bf (t1450 (fsck): remove dangling > objects, 2010-09-06) you added a 'test_might_fail git fsck' to the > 1450 test that catches an object corruption. Do you remember if > there was some flakiness in this test that necessitated it, or is it > merely "I think this should fail, but it does not, and we may fix it > some day but I am not doing that in this patch?"
Thomas is the person to ask. :) See v1.6.3-rc0~176^2~3 (Test fsck a bit harder, 2009-02-19): > + (git fsck 2>out; true) && which that cleanup tightened to test_might_fail. But yes, I'm pretty sure it was for futureproofing, not for hiding flakiness. I think your patch does the right thing in changing it to test_must_fail now that fsck exits nonzero. Thanks, Jonathan -- 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
