From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35683503BD8 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 11:07:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791976040; cv=none; b=BaKs96F+dLzaCvoBg0uVu5UUXmCgE62IMge/IZUCvYvYHyCVl2YQtYE7hZLEjpmBWDOweoLJjyfFKIX4+0SUXTC3CuhErHGzwwami8kDfQa/K0fUFst9Kep6SCtRjxdCRQxw5epFjyJ/ktkZlgfqGg3aL3qET9z8m2Hv4DsiQqI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791976040; c=relaxed/simple; bh=A7RYhSI0NhJLPrGAjpXfW1ySb1HL4oYVqfdh27IbcSk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VAvbRlTYC5eisWw8p7A5uvRJRBTDiQvPbSHmmaSmH3izuffv+eHdhgAQuycRRXhnSozRUVLVikovOALOlaJfZvoXQZSW5zzxDIc1hAca0BeGoiT44/OOwSqFC43JBl6I8XZY4pBqI4Q9ZOaKPgsLOjmiAkOlnxKhkt2Fw3O/HTY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=XXt+mTlh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="XXt+mTlh" Received: (qmail 69416 invoked by uid 106); 14 Oct 2026 11:07:16 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=A7RYhSI0NhJLPrGAjpXfW1ySb1HL4oYVqfdh27IbcSk=; b=XXt+mTlh5nNYv83JjHtuK5228jSDWdvk0uNwILZa8XH108YTVrCZp4HhAQ3/BTlKrHaV4sm3q7q5idxvEADxqN4bPndXdoaSUMydtRkiwBfVZN8mYoGIBormC8dj5Ir2v9Va21SSclBpwGSveNUMtMCyHsK69pwmsPnQcOge/oQ8cr8PFd/C08DCA+8jbMQkdqcEq7JcFpIZF3XyQ/2cnOqmK5TM6oGAdGrMYDxyEQvewUmn+agFbu9xWFdsaUGmeIUUcZ0GWqQ/y6GYJK/zMq6PWrmAjeLUECMsoqiIUNy+eEYLBWvno9am6y+s3azK/usgBo10+h6+5S76aH6f6g== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 11:07:16 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 36988 invoked by uid 111); 14 Oct 2026 11:07:16 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 07:07:16 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 07:07:16 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Todd Zullinger , SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] ci: fix "fedora-breaking-changes-meson" job Message-ID: <20261014110716.GC1356555@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20261014-pks-ci-housekeeping-v3-0-04c24e1f480d@pks.im> <20261014-pks-ci-housekeeping-v3-2-04c24e1f480d@pks.im> <20261014091037.GB1341124@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 12:35:08PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > Seems obviously correct, but I wonder if just: > > > > *breaking-changes*) > > > > would fix this and prevent any issues for possible future jobs. The > > downside of a loose pattern is false matches, but it seems like a small > > risk given our universe of jobs. > > In general I think the way we structure these is somewhat lackluster: > > - I never really understood the split between "ci/lib.sh" and > "ci/run-build-and-tests.sh". > > - There is a bunch of duplication that could be avoided. > > - And your suggestion makes sense, too. Yeah, I think there is a combination of organic growth and the fact that nobody really cares about ci unless it's failing. It is probably ripe for cleanup if somebody cares to spend time on it. > I originally carried a patch that merges all of this into "ci/lib.sh", > and it also did changes similar to what you propose. We could probably > revive that patch, but if so I'd propose to do that as a follow-up. I'm OK with doing it later. I noticed some other similar spots in the context while reading your patches. E.g., anything with *-sha256* could set the default hash, and so on. I expect you might have found them for your patch, too. ;) -Peff