On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Exactly. I am happy to submit a patch, but I cannot think of any
Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Exactly. I am happy to submit a patch, but I cannot think of any
mechanisms besides:
1. Calling `id`, which I suspect is very not portable.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Exactly. I am happy to submit a patch, but I cannot think of any
mechanisms besides:
1. Calling `id`, which I suspect is very not portable.
2. Writing a C program to check getuid().
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:39:56PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Before writing that patchlet, I briefly looked at grep output and
thought that many that are protected only by SANITY lacked POSIXPERM
by mistake:
t/t1004-read-tree-m-u-wf.sh:test_expect_success SANITY 'funny symlink in...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:29:39PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
This should not be the final patch (I think it should become a lazy
prereq as it does a lot more), but just for testing, how does this
look?
t/test-lib.sh | 11 ++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
The current scheme does not require POSIXPERM. Would this mean that
some platforms no longer runs SANITY tests (e.g., Windows)?
Many of the SANITY-marked tests already require both, but not all.
Before writing that patchlet, I briefly looked at grep output and
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Exactly. I am happy to submit a patch, but I cannot think of any
mechanisms besides:
1. Calling `id`, which I suspect is very not portable.
2. Writing a C program to check getuid(). That's portable for most
Unixes. It looks like we already have a
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
I ran into this problem. It seems like (at least on older Mac OS X)
that the root directory is created like so:
drwxrwxr-t 39 root admin /
And since the first (and likely only user) on Mac OS X is a member of
the admin group, the SANITY
On 2015-01-14 19.37, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
t5539 doesn't seem to work as expected under Mac OX X 10.6
(10.9 is OK)
I am not root.
Are there any ideas how we can improve the situation, or how to debug ?
As to how to debug, the first step is to
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:50:47PM +0100, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
But, why does e.g. t0004 behave more gracefully (and skips) and t5539 just
dies ?
./t0004-unwritable.sh
ok 1 - setup
ok 2 # skip write-tree should notice unwritable repository (missing SANITY of
POSIXPERM,SANITY)
On Jan 14, 2015, at 13:17, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:50:47PM +0100, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
But, why does e.g. t0004 behave more gracefully (and skips) and
t5539 just dies ?
./t0004-unwritable.sh
ok 1 - setup
ok 2 # skip write-tree should notice unwritable repository
t5539 doesn't seem to work as expected under Mac OX X 10.6
(10.9 is OK)
I am not root.
Are there any ideas how we can improve the situation, or how to debug ?
t
t ./t5539-fetch-http-shallow.sh ; echo $?
1..0 # SKIP Cannot run httpd tests as root
0
t
t GIT_TEST_HTTPD=t
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
t5539 doesn't seem to work as expected under Mac OX X 10.6
(10.9 is OK)
I am not root.
Are there any ideas how we can improve the situation, or how to debug ?
As to how to debug, the first step is to grep for that message and
notice that it comes
13 matches
Mail list logo
