On Sat 27/08/2016 16:42, Daniel Jakots wrote: > On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:02:24 +0200, Björn Ketelaars > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat 27/08/2016 11:54, Daniel Jakots wrote: > > > > > > Update looks good to me. I'm a bit concerned by the test suite > > > taking much longer than before : > > > > > > On 1.0.6 > > > 1 failed, 489 passed, 62 skipped, 2 xfailed in 557.11 seconds > > > On 1.0.7 > > > 1 failed, 507 passed, 65 skipped, 2 xfailed in 1555.24 seconds > > > > > > Is only the test suite that takes longer, did you notice any change > > > while using it normally? > > > > Daniel, > > > > I'm unable to reproduce your test results: > > > > On 1.0.6 > > 490 passed, 62 skipped, 2 xpassed in 1500.20 seconds > > On 1.0.7 > > 508 passed, 65 skipped, 2 xpassed in 1737.95 seconds > > > > Running the test suite from 1.0.7 takes a bit longer than running the > > suite from 1.0.6. I'm inclined to blame the additional tests. Results > > from both test suites are reproducible (using same machine - amd64). > > > > What is interesting is that you have found a failed test. Could you > > share the test logs? It is not unlikely that this failed test > > explains the difference in running times. > > It's weird because this morning, I ran two times make test and it > happened both. Now I did it again, and I have > 490 passed, 62 skipped, 2 xfailed in 285.23 seconds > and > 508 passed, 65 skipped, 2 xfailed in 289.07 seconds > which looks correct. > > You didn't see anything weird with real usage (i.e. not with make test > but with actual backup work)? If so it may be a glitch on my side.
No weirdness here! I've been running it for a couple of days on amd64 and i386... -- Björn Ketelaars GPG key: 0x4F0E5F21
