Hi all, Thank you for the guidance and clarifications.
> =?UTF-8?B?T2xlZyBUc2VsZWJyb3Zza2l5?= <[email protected]> writes: > >> I fetched all refs and tags locally and reset my tree to a clean > >> origin/master, but I am unable to locate commit 34740b9 in my > >> repository > > > Maybe your origin is out-of-date or is just different? > > What does ‘git remote get-url origin’ say in your local repository? > > 34740b9 is there for me, but it's less than a day old: > > commit 34740b90bc123d645a3a71231b765b778bdcf049 > Author: Richard Guo <[email protected]> > Date: Mon Jan 19 11:13:23 2026 +0900 > > Fix unsafe pushdown of quals referencing grouping Vars > > However, none of these patches are touching any recently-modified > code AFAIK, so they should apply cleanly even to a slightly out > of date tree. I suspect Soumya's failure-to-apply problem has > a different cause. The patches I posted were just "git diff" > output, without a commit message, so I believe you can't use > "git am" to apply them. Hoary old "patch -p1" ought to work > though. I missed the fact that the patches were raw git diff outputs rather than meant for git am. I will retry applying them on a clean upstream master tree and re-run the relevant test suites. > =?UTF-8?B?T2xlZyBUc2VsZWJyb3Zza2l5?= <[email protected]> writes: > >> While debugging that I got annoyed that a match failure results > >> in a timeout exit with absolutely no data logged about what output > >> the test got. So v3-0001 also changes timeout() --- which creates > >> a timeout that aborts the test --- to timer() --- which does what > >> the test author clearly expected, namely just stop waiting for > >> more input. (There's a thread somewhere around here about making > >> that change more globally, but I went ahead and did it here.) > > > I've found your thread about this - [1], and I agree, using > > timer() is better here, we get the stdout and stderr of a timed-out > > query > > Thanks for digging that up. After re-reading that thread I'm feeling > nervous about changing timeout() to timer() in something we need to > back-patch, so I'll leave that change out of the committed patch. > We ought to raise the priority of making that happen, though. > > > Also, thanks for making both "pump until" blocks identical, it seemed > > a little strange to have them be different. > > Yeah, I couldn't see a reason for that either. I too agree that changing the behavior in a back-patch could be risky and it makes sense to leave that part out for now while still addressing the core test robustness issues. I will follow up once I have re-applied the patches and completed testing. Regards, Soumya
