From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7570C47E48 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2358613D6 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234241AbhGNU7R (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:59:17 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:58523 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234331AbhGNU7F (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:59:05 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBC3130E39; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:56:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=W2IOIjDuGdfe7Ko6/ovRM2CPZiaaO0aWOBJSxJ d7z8E=; b=l/XWqPW84nwxByNCIumsmz3uTqUwOorOetc0RtGXEun2UWr9L+GzLu G7uHUUGLXbSKXx/aLr3NVwdQ10Ao9Q2A86pwl3QIPIpyFIGQV94iaPSWWT7/IzfG osfsDT8LkIVC9fePlhHrscfjsqWTKf65FEMSNVwmj3FqUYQOaXhIE= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5BCE130E38; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:56:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.3.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 287EB130E33; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:56:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Ramsay Jones , =?utf-8?B?xJBvw6BuIFRy4bqnbiBDw7RuZw==?= Danh Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci: run `make sparse` as a GitHub workflow References: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:56:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 14 Jul 2021 22:54:07 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EB555E94-E4E5-11EB-A958-D5C30F5B5667-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> > Which means that the likelihood of a run to fail increases with the number >> > of jobs in said run (even innocuous problems such as transient failures to >> > download an Ubuntu package), and it also makes it much more painful to >> > re-run the entire thing because you may well end up wasting a grand total >> > of ~370 minutes even if only a 30-second-job would need to be re-run. >> > >> > Having said that, I think you're right and the upside of keeping things >> > together may outweigh that downside. >> >> I wasn't make a request or a demand to change or not to change >> anything, so in this particular exchange there was no point where I >> was right (or wrong, for that matter ;-). I was asking if there was >> a solid reasoning behind the split, and if there is, I am perfectly >> happy to see it done as a separate workflow with the log message >> that explains why it is separate. I am also perfectly fine with >> this rolled into the primary one, with clear reasoning behind the >> choice recorded in the log message. > > I do not think that it would be an improvement to defend the default > choice (i.e. to add this new job to `.github/workflows/main.yml`) in the > commit message. It is the default for new CI stuff to go, after all, and > we do not need to clutter the message by stating the obvious. It wasn't quite obvious why we justify spending 370 minutes one more time only to rerun 30-second job, though.