* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 01:14:16PM CEST:
> Avoid sleeping for one second most of the time in sanity check.
>
> * m4/sanity.m4 (AM_SANITY_CHECK): Try sanity check first without
> sleeping for a second, and only if that failed, sleep and try
> again, to av
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
...
> I've committed the patch now, to be merged in branch-1.11 and master,
> with the only additional change to avoid a second sleep in the error
> path.
>
> Cheers, and thanks again, (and sorry for the multi-second delay ;-)
;-)
Thanks!
* Jim Meyering wrote on Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:14:19PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > I think we can fix most instances of this wait portably, without looking
> > at subsecond time stamps: let's just try without sleeping first, and
> > only if that fails, try again after sleeping. What do you
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Jim,
> * Jim Meyering wrote on Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 09:33:11AM CEST:
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> > * Jim Meyering wrote on Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:20:52PM CEST:
>> >> I deliberately chose not to use ls, because parsing
>> >> its output is not worth the trouble.
>> >
Hello Jim,
* Jim Meyering wrote on Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 09:33:11AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Jim Meyering wrote on Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:20:52PM CEST:
> >> I deliberately chose not to use ls, because parsing
> >> its output is not worth the trouble.
> >
> > Could that bring any more p
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Jim Meyering wrote on Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:20:52PM CEST:
>> I noticed (by inspection, since I was looking at AM_SANITY_CHECK)
>> the unconditional 1-second sleep in coreutils' configure script,
>> and realized that it'd be easy to avoid it on modern systems:
>> either
Hi Jim,
thanks for the patch.
* Jim Meyering wrote on Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:20:52PM CEST:
> I noticed (by inspection, since I was looking at AM_SANITY_CHECK)
> the unconditional 1-second sleep in coreutils' configure script,
> and realized that it'd be easy to avoid it on modern systems:
> eith
On 2009-07-30, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I noticed (by inspection, since I was looking at AM_SANITY_CHECK)
> the unconditional 1-second sleep in coreutils' configure script,
> and realized that it'd be easy to avoid it on modern systems:
> either because configure was created more than a second before
Hi,
I noticed (by inspection, since I was looking at AM_SANITY_CHECK)
the unconditional 1-second sleep in coreutils' configure script,
and realized that it'd be easy to avoid it on modern systems:
either because configure was created more than a second before,
or because the file system supports s
