Message ID | pull.776.v6.git.1607542142.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Maintenance IV: Platform-specific background maintenance | expand |
"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > This is based on ds/maintenance-part-3. > > After sitting with the background maintenance as it has been cooking, I > wanted to come back around and implement the background maintenance for > Windows. However, I noticed that there were some things bothering me with > background maintenance on my macOS machine. These are detailed in PATCH 3, > but the tl;dr is that 'cron' is not recommended by Apple and instead > 'launchd' satisfies our needs. > > This series implements the background scheduling so git maintenance > (start|stop) works on those platforms. I've been operating with these > schedules for a while now without the problems described in the patches. > > There is a particularly annoying case about console windows popping up on > Windows, but PATCH 4 describes a plan to get around that. > > > Update in V6 > ============ > > * The Windows platform uses the tempfile API a bit better, including using > the frequency in the filename to make the test simpler. Are two fix-up patches from Eric that have been queued near the top of ds/maintenance-part-4 still relevant? At least, the "when invoked individually" patch that added an "-f" option to two invocations of "rm" is still applicable, I would think (I didn't look at the other one). commit e3801c41e4d4cb1dd899942e04ab78310e781d07 Author: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> t7900: make macOS-specific test work on Windows Notes (amlog): Message-Id: <20201130044224.12298-3-sunshine@sunshineco.com> commit 1e5ddd79e2da18ee19b665a045d4187c5dc6234e Author: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> t7900: fix test failures when invoked individually via --run Notes (amlog): Message-Id: <20201130044224.12298-2-sunshine@sunshineco.com>
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:33 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > > Update in V6 > > ============ > > > > * The Windows platform uses the tempfile API a bit better, including using > > the frequency in the filename to make the test simpler. > > Are two fix-up patches from Eric that have been queued near the top > of ds/maintenance-part-4 still relevant? Both of the patches from Sunshine are still relevant atop Stolee's latest (v6), and they should apply cleanly (I would think) since v6 didn't change anything related to those patches.
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:33 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: >> > Update in V6 >> > ============ >> > >> > * The Windows platform uses the tempfile API a bit better, including using >> > the frequency in the filename to make the test simpler. >> >> Are two fix-up patches from Eric that have been queued near the top >> of ds/maintenance-part-4 still relevant? > > Both of the patches from Sunshine are still relevant atop Stolee's > latest (v6), and they should apply cleanly (I would think) since v6 > didn't change anything related to those patches. Yup, I tried rebasing these two and they applied cleanly, so I'll include them in today's pushout (which I haven't finished yet). I probably would not notice if the updated 4-patch series already solved the issue in another way without causing the textual conflict with your two fix-up patches, though ;-) Thanks.
On 12/9/2020 8:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:33 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >>> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Update in V6 >>>> ============ >>>> >>>> * The Windows platform uses the tempfile API a bit better, including using >>>> the frequency in the filename to make the test simpler. >>> >>> Are two fix-up patches from Eric that have been queued near the top >>> of ds/maintenance-part-4 still relevant? >> >> Both of the patches from Sunshine are still relevant atop Stolee's >> latest (v6), and they should apply cleanly (I would think) since v6 >> didn't change anything related to those patches. > > Yup, I tried rebasing these two and they applied cleanly, so I'll > include them in today's pushout (which I haven't finished yet). > > I probably would not notice if the updated 4-patch series already > solved the issue in another way without causing the textual conflict > with your two fix-up patches, though ;-) I noticed a subtle issue with the v6 series, so I _will_ reroll the series squashing in Eric's patches. He will remain a co-author and I'll add the Helped-by: Ævar along with the details for that patch. Thanks, -Stolee