On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
> Is there some crazy way to avoid pty's completely? I suspect they are
> inherently random trouble. I mean, tests presumably can't use a "real"
> terminal, pseudo or otherwise, it all has to be batch anyway.
> (Sorry for not actually looking a
Is there some crazy way to avoid pty's completely? I suspect they are
inherently random trouble. I mean, tests presumably can't use a "real"
terminal, pseudo or otherwise, it all has to be batch anyway.
(Sorry for not actually looking at what you are doing with the ptys,
likely I'm totally offbas
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> With info tests, when doing parallel tests, with
>> make -j8 check
>> for example, there may be some failures that do not happen for
>> sequantial tests. It is not that mu
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With info tests, when doing parallel tests, with
> make -j8 check
> for example, there may be some failures that do not happen for
> sequantial tests. It is not that much reproducible. There is something
> in the log that could
Hello,
With info tests, when doing parallel tests, with
make -j8 check
for example, there may be some failures that do not happen for
sequantial tests. It is not that much reproducible. There is something
in the log that could point to the issue though:
FAIL: t/body-start.sh
==
