Nice to see that all these issues got fixed!

7 patches for repository http://darcs.net/screened:

patch 42c9ed34b0ddc5319be28cba3b65475ccb0da017
Author: Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen@helmholtz-berlin.de>
Date:   Wed Jun 17 22:17:27 CEST 2015
  * renamed no longer failing test for resolved issue1332

patch 953651e74b8a9c8f97ab8e5a95727804b61e2ddb
Author: Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen@helmholtz-berlin.de>
Date:   Wed Jun 17 22:18:16 CEST 2015
  * renamed no longer failing test for resolved issue2380

patch af9f3fa9f85341c10a7c0a0270fdfb6d0ba47e43
Author: Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen@helmholtz-berlin.de>
Date:   Wed Jun 17 22:18:33 CEST 2015
  * renamed no longer failing test for resolved issue612

patch be1150c5df22e82dd2cc3cf6508acb97ff8f9f51
Author: Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen@helmholtz-berlin.de>
Date:   Wed Jun 17 23:47:08 CEST 2015
  * renamed no longer failing test for issue2086

patch 1246e18ccb5159b9ae87d94260bfe174f9988b81
Author: Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen@helmholtz-berlin.de>
Date:   Wed Jun 17 23:48:46 CEST 2015
  * renamed no longer failing test for issue1928

patch 9793462811ebbfcb66537792dfa9ada4c2f10f9a
Author: Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen@helmholtz-berlin.de>
Date:   Wed Jun 17 23:56:20 CEST 2015
  * renamed no longer failing test for issue1632

patch fe3b9edf7254626fe5a794a082206f09ab1318f0
Author: Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen@helmholtz-berlin.de>
Date:   Thu Jun 18 00:11:53 CEST 2015
  * renamed non-failing test for irreprodicible issue2242

Attachments

• patch-preview.txt
• renamed-no-longer-failing-test-for-resolved-issue1332.dpatch
• unnamed

The issue2086 patch fails on my machine, I'll investigate further.

This should fix the problem with the issue2086 test.

1 patch for repository darcs-unstable@darcs.net:screened:

Sun Jun 28 21:15:42 BST 2015  Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh@earth.li>
  * stop test being sensitive to runner's umask

Attachments

• patch-preview.txt
• stop-test-being-sensitive-to-runner_s-umask.dpatch
• unnamed

A test may be broken in different ways. It could be a false positive or
a false negative. Which was the case here?

I still get no failures from this test. That suggests it was it a false
positive (for you), but I'd like to have this confirmed. BTW, my umask
is 002.

A problem with this test as I see it is that it really tests whether
--umask works, not whether darcs changes the permission (which it does,
according to the user's umask). I guess what the guy on twitter did was
more like

> umask 022
> chmod 0664 _darcs/index 
> ls _darcs/index
-rw-rw-r-- 1 franksen franksen 80000 Jul  2 12:59 _darcs/index
> darcs record ...
[...]
-rw-rw-r-- 1 franksen franksen 80000 Jul  2 12:59 _darcs/index
ls _darcs/index

and this (of course) fails.

Sorry, I wanted to say:

> umask 022
> chmod 0664 _darcs/index 
> ls _darcs/index
-rw-rw-r-- 1 franksen franksen 80000 Jul  2 12:59 _darcs/index
> darcs record ...
[...]

and then *expected*:

-rw-rw-r-- 1 franksen franksen 80000 Jul  2 12:59 _darcs/index

but got

-rw-r--r-- 1 franksen franksen 80000 Jul  2 12:59 _darcs/index

Yes, I had a false positive, i.e. it failed on my machine. As you say I 
suspect the problem was based on perhaps unrealistic expectations.

I agree the test is arguably not much use, as it just confirms that 
umasks behave as expected. Perhaps we should just delete it.