This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
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
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
>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
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple