Re: compat.t failure on Win32 for 0.31012

2009-01-15 Thread Eric Wilhelm
# from David Golden # on Wednesday 14 January 2009 04:49: >Without really understanding the details, >my wild guess is that calling "unlink" schedules a file for deletion > and there is a lag before it executes and subsequent checks for > deletion sometimes fail.  I've been able to make the proble

Re: compat.t failure on Win32 for 0.31012

2009-01-14 Thread Adam Kennedy
Agreed. Indefinite retry is not a good idea, but limited retry should cover almost every case that is laggy without preventing legitimate failures from happening. Adam K 2009/1/15 Jan Dubois : > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, David Golden wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Adam Kennedy >> wrote: >

RE: compat.t failure on Win32 for 0.31012

2009-01-14 Thread Jan Dubois
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, David Golden wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Adam Kennedy > wrote: > > > If the "delete pending" thing is detectable, we could even just fix it > > in error handling. > > > > if ( $@ =~ /delete pending/ ) { > >print "Waiting for files to delete...\n"; > >slee

Re: compat.t failure on Win32 for 0.31012

2009-01-14 Thread David Golden
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote: > If the "delete pending" thing is detectable, we could even just fix it > in error handling. > > if ( $@ =~ /delete pending/ ) { >print "Waiting for files to delete...\n"; >sleep(5); >run_it_again(); > } > It's not a consistent err

Re: compat.t failure on Win32 for 0.31012

2009-01-14 Thread Adam Kennedy
If the "delete pending" thing is detectable, we could even just fix it in error handling. if ( $@ =~ /delete pending/ ) { print "Waiting for files to delete...\n"; sleep(5); run_it_again(); } Adam K 2009/1/15 David Golden : > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jan Dubois wrote: > >> I

Re: compat.t failure on Win32 for 0.31012

2009-01-14 Thread David Golden
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jan Dubois wrote: > I've gotten rid of all of these problems by adding all my build and test > directories to exclusion lists of the virus checkers. Makes things run > slightly faster too. :) > I've suspected the virus scanner. Sadly, on my corporate-issue lapt

RE: compat.t failure on Win32 for 0.31012

2009-01-14 Thread Jan Dubois
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, David Golden wrote: > I tested the 0.31012 tarball from CPAN (rather than just trunk). I get > the error at the end of the email -- even *with* File::Path upgraded > to 2.07. I've seen this stuff periodically on Windows in a lot of > situations (particularly in CPAN::Reporter).

compat.t failure on Win32 for 0.31012

2009-01-14 Thread David Golden
I tested the 0.31012 tarball from CPAN (rather than just trunk). I get the error at the end of the email -- even *with* File::Path upgraded to 2.07. I've seen this stuff periodically on Windows in a lot of situations (particularly in CPAN::Reporter). Without really understanding the details, my w