This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: YA call for snapshot testing

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:03:05PM -0800, Kevin Layer wrote:
>Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>> > This problem is killing me.  I'm currently looking msysgit + GnuWin32
>>> > because I just can't take the crashes of bash.exe and git.exe anymore.
>>> > In my testing, so far, I've never seen msysgit or the bash that comes
>>> > with it crash.  Why is it that cygwin has this problem but msysgit
>>> > does not?  It's an honest question and I'm not trying to be
>>> > provocative.  I've been a cygwin user since before Red Hat acquired
>>> > them, and the above statement makes me really sad.
>>> Have you tried running rebaseall?  
>Absolutely.  After updating cygwin, I reboot and run rebaseall -v
>first thing.

FYI, as far as I can tell the stack trace that you provided did not seem
to come from the 20120123 snapshot.

>>> If not, install the rebase package and
>>> read its README to get the proper procedure for running rebaseall.  This
>>> is a classic error message indicating colliding DLL addresses.  Rebaseall
>>> (and sometimes peflags) are the prescribed solution in these cases.
>>> If that doesn't solve the problem, a complete problem report would be
>>> helpful.
>I have no idea how to make a reproducible test case of my system,
>composed of 50+ repos, is large and not open source.  We have shell
>scripts that we use to apply git commands to each repo.
>One thing I've mentioned before: the problem became much worse when we
>switched development to a 16-core machine.  It's running Server 2008
>Does anyone at Red Hat run on such a large-core machine?

Why does that matter?  This is a free software project staffed by one
Red Hat person and a lot of people from other institutions.

>The machine has been memtested, btw, and msysgit on the exact same
>repos operates flawlessly, in my tests so far.  All other non-cygwin
>software on the machine works perfectly, too.
>If you think a bug report without a reproducible test case would be
>useful, let me know what info I can provide.

Hmm.  Can you actually conceive of a situation where, when reporting a
bug, a reproducible test case is NOT useful?

Barring a reproducible test case you could provide some of the
information that I asked for in the thread that you're responding to.
And, we always want to see cygcheck output with the additional details
asked for.


Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]