Re: bug#8365: 3 of 657 tests failed

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 06:50:12PM CEST:
> On Friday 01 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > >  tests/remake-bug8365.test |   99 
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 
> > and the name of the new test is inconsistent.  I suggest either
> > pr8365.test (yeah, can see you cringe already) or remake-timing.test
> > or so.
> >
> [Disclaimer: BIKESHEDDING follows]
> I have to object to this.  First, IMHO the "correct" way to resolve
> this inconsistency would be to give more expressive names to the
> existing `pr*.test' tests (so that `pr9.test' would become, e.g.,
> `config-aux-dir-pr9.test'), not to "dumb down" the names of new tests.
> Second, I really do believe that a name like `remake-bug8365.test' is
> better than your proposed alternatives, because it's a good compromise
> between length and expressivenes:

If you want both number and expressive name, let's put the number first,
so that the first 8 characters of the name before the dot can be unique,
e.g., pr8365-remake-timing.test.  At least that is portable then.

> > Will the new test work on a file system with sub-second granularity
> > where 'touch' has the issues described at 'info Autoconf --index touch'?
> >
> Uh-oh, this could be a problem.  In order to trigger the bug, various
> files need to have the *same* timestamp.  So what about using the `-t'
> option of touch instead?  See the attached squash-in.

Well, the 'date' options are not so portable, see the Autoconf manual.
I wouldn't fix anything until I see a failure in the wild.

Thanks, and sorry for being so picky,
Ralf