Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2020, #04; Wed, 22)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

>> Do they have to shout that loudly in the name?
>>
>> We could rename these jobs to e.g. 'linux-clang-py2' and the like, but
>> I think it would bring little benefit, if any.  In our Travis CI
>> builds these Linux/OSX Clang/GCC jobs come from the build matrix,
>> therefore the jobname is not visible on the Travis CI web interface or
>> API, only in the build logs.  There are some pages on Azure Pipelines
>> that do show the jobname (and some that could, but hide it instead),
>> but it's just too convoluted (or sometimes even impossible, well, for
>> me anyway) to get there.
>>
>> And if the requested Python binary can't be found, which will
>> eventually happen with 'python2', then the non-zero exit code of
>> 'which' will abort the build, no matter how the job is called.
>
> I am mostly worried about contributors whose PRs break for "magic"
> reasons. If it is not clear where the difference between `linux-gcc` and
> `linux-clang` lies, that can cause unintended frustration, and I do not
> want to cause that.

So, what, if any, decision have we reached?

If linux-gcc and linux-clang labels are not visible, linux-clang-py2
and osx-py3 would not be, either, so...