From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (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 EF0C41CFEC1 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726334240; cv=none; b=X/2+nJZzRYXe6/ucwCOhJ5Q/+p3Ksld9eh5t3QBA7MmKB41iz9dncMAzZqu7IpyqewV+sbGjBj/h5QlK37FBksiT6z6cBom4ks8UT33FjBy2dqWcnwJHM8DaRyVDWOtYZJwXnvDN+kI+MCa75rSYRFI64+v61zMoHT0YF9mAMXI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726334240; c=relaxed/simple; bh=m8utrwKuKpvjDfJCbLFo5RQ8MkNDbvnbFnLi377iitA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=btXYct1ulBZTUMaPhWDdqS5/7y3WSbgAMD5ewuieBPYwccUAIbtBocvK6pQ6hgchM08yFdRE/r3fvu1yi08R1pLsi/IwPfzwyBoIc8rIHqXf/0j+dFQdMBUixN/K+U8L58ka4HuieWtMV+jqAICOspbo7oDWW17VXbtjLyswoik= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Cmyy8b1f; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Cmyy8b1f" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE85B190E4; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:17:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=m8utrwKuKpvjDfJCbLFo5RQ8MkNDbvnbFnLi37 7iitA=; b=Cmyy8b1fq9UUOC4A4T7b81uPjNRfWpF6sOrC3W6y6giVF9XYlfRlCX d6F+ey6fCT2bKuk6GOGnDPF/0I6FDqLCIGMv/d0M2+ruAgitgC6cxnx3FF3LC1wL co0PlyxgLK3Ana3WDTy5A91EeLlroO4I1tsvCWV71SxQD+erDQDIM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6816190E3; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:17:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42F95190E2; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:17:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci(linux32): make Javascript Actions work in x86 mode In-Reply-To: <20240914072932.GB1284567@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sat, 14 Sep 2024 03:29:32 -0400") References: <20240914072932.GB1284567@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:17:16 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3146C63C-72BD-11EF-95A9-9B0F950A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Jeff King writes: > I'm not totally opposed to this direction, but I'm a little concerned > about the stability/maintenance of the solution. In particular: > >> + NODE_URL=https://unofficial-builds.nodejs.org/download/release/v20.17.0/node-v20.17.0-linux-x86.tar.gz && > ... >> + curl -Lo /tmp/node.tar.gz $NODE_URL && >> + tar -C /__e/node20 -x --strip-components=1 -f /tmp/node.tar.gz > > This is pretty intimate with how Actions work (both the node20 version > and the "/__e/" magic). It's hard to say if/when that would bite us. Thanks for clearly expressing the uneasiness I felt, which I could not turn into concrete words, when I saw the patch first time. Each of these approaches may have its pros and cons, but I somehow do not see that the newly proposed alternative is 10x better than what was reviewed and queued already to be worth the effort to replace it. Thanks, both.