)]}'
{
  "commit": "d2cc5a529fd2039f857f4bf7c9a5014cfc263449",
  "tree": "40f35b5c524e4038df5eba8753558c35c26d88ec",
  "parents": [
    "451ddb47886c7561c1f16ef5f56f2006dafa4ea7"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Mark Salyzyn",
    "email": "salyzyn@google.com",
    "time": "Thu Mar 10 15:25:14 2016 -0800"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Mark Salyzyn",
    "email": "salyzyn@google.com",
    "time": "Wed Mar 16 09:04:30 2016 -0700"
  },
  "message": "liblog: test: do not LOG in signal handler\n\n(cherry pick from commit 50af7f8b1d28d6efd1e61fa7aadaf963c7a2e3ff)\n\n- We actually are logging in a signal handler, the title is bluster\n  to remind developers. It is not a reliable path though as it can\n  lock up. Our goal is to minimize the chances of a lockup regardless\n  in the name of stability only. The test remains to catch regression\n  in the name of code quality and reliability. Expected to be\n  \u003e99.999% reliable.\n- Add a new _correct_ duplicate test that uses signal to release a\n  semaphore to a thread that performs the task. This path is expected\n  to be 100% reliable.\n\nBug: 27405083\nChange-Id: Ibb7cf4b13e34ebfac2db2af8724b7db7a27f81a8\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "ecd3b0437bad704d1f5604e45cc998621e4981ed",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "liblog/tests/liblog_test.cpp",
      "new_id": "8864ae27f1fd3dcf80d880af6f88e2f5c97cacda",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "liblog/tests/liblog_test.cpp"
    }
  ]
}