alembic / sphinx puzzler

[James Addison]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 6:17 PM Chris Lamb <chris at reproducible-builds.org>
wrote:

> Thanks. Please feel free to quote my previous email, as well as link
> to my WIP patch.



> Let us know when you have an issue number/URL.


D'oh - unfortunately I only read these after filing the issue, thanks
though.  It is reported at:
https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/11198 (and I see you've added
context there)


> Hm, isn't this just probability at work? As in, because there is 50%
> chance that the 2-item set is serialised in any given order, it's only
> going to be detected as unreproducible 50% of the time:
>
>  +---------+---------+----------------+
>  | Build A | Build B | Result         |
>  +---------+---------+----------------+
>  |  a, b   |  a, b   | "Reproducible" |
>  +---------+---------+----------------+
>  |  b, a   |  a, b   | Unreproducible |
>  +---------+---------+----------------+
>  |  a, b   |  b, a   | Unreproducible |
>  +---------+---------+----------------+
>  |  b, a   |  b, a   | "Reproducible" |
>  +---------+---------+----------------+
>

 I'm not sure; for an event that is truly a random binary choice, that
would make sense.  In this case, though, I think there may be something
about the system initialization prior to the object description code
running that produces a predictable, yet differing, result based on
environmental factor(s).

(I'd prefer to be replying with some detailed findings as a result of
experimenting with repeated attempts to generate the documentation during
from-scratch builds.. I haven't gotten around to that here, though)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/attachments/20230218/4e41d9b9/attachment.htm>