On 05/19/2014 05:37 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> IMHO the problem is that d6a97674 was the last revision in the
> REL9_3_STABLE branch when the test started (00:14), but at 06:06
> 777d07d7 got committed. So the check at the end failed, because the
> tested revision was suddenly ~2 days over the limit.
>
> This seems wrong to me, because even a very fast test including the
> commit (e.g. starting at 06:00, finishing at 06:10) would fail exactly
> like this.
>
> This is more probable on the old stable branches, because the commits
> are not that frequent (on HEAD the commits are usually less than a few
> hours apart, so the new one won't obsolete the previous one). It's also
> made more likely to hit by the long runtime, because it increases the
> probability something will be committed into the branch. And it also
> makes it more "expensive" because it effectively throws all the cpu time
> to /dev/null.
>
>
Well, the original code was put in for a reason, presumably that we were
getting some stale data and wanted to exclude it. So I'm unwilling to
throw it out altogether. If someone can propose a reasonable sanity
check then I'm prepared to implement it.
cheers
andrew