From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (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 1804F38DD1 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:25:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726417523; cv=none; b=IDi5booPQPWh/dsM4hgKkzvdD74XJgpVRWWG/Y03gYAk1YsfQCIDQM+Mblotu3dmO+RMUlRU3aJfgHFoMV4St39j2tjFfHiyB4HZuTsN4g/dUW3hNHn6e2sLiOmQzI+OzxCpjqUDpkGc06wf7NtG5v4D9IF2QiPi+kJmY726V9o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726417523; c=relaxed/simple; bh=h6Tt9wGm9XMjspb2Ppi1hC0o6mogLyqE5Ye0Nrx46CQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=eiXLvkx9TTKJs9TgurkGuBQOkjiAIVfdlsF77RW+jcBU8kVojFKxkZwKkrYngdCqeVu9nfImJkhew2Zkglnoal47v2aSx5dAAGSzY/C31bgXZ90srtvbfz1NGny7Gz56/FJtYudZj99OgnuzAcXRi7MjmHMYZ/Pd09T6hgc3uRM= 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=OesOfb3N; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 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="OesOfb3N" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C9622583; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 12:25:12 -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=h6Tt9wGm9XMjspb2Ppi1hC0o6mogLyqE5Ye0Nr x46CQ=; b=OesOfb3NmtFC225KECvZC87V1AIC+7AN06OQDkc5Y3NRBSpeUQPQYV Pl913+c+oHSYAdEu4dDELhfQcEqim97vkKzQVXzASFrdPgpUtST1quAxsHXvaabs vPUUDO3m+qd/6UIdcfhyOi36fBtIQTZ8URPvN6IpOtks/K/0di28o= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD77422582; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 12:25:12 -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-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E49F22580; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 12:25:12 -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: <20240915110706.GA2017642@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sun, 15 Sep 2024 07:07:06 -0400") References: <20240914072932.GB1284567@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240915110706.GA2017642@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:25:11 -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: 150935B4-737F-11EF-B5A9-2BAEEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Jeff King writes: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:17:16AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> 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. > > That's my feeling, too, but I'd reserve final judgement to see Dscho's > response; it's possible I am under-estimating the 32/64-bit confusion > risk. FWIW, what you said matches my recollection from years ago ;-) back when I had to deal with that. > I'd also note that his patch does not require bumping the distro > version, which would let us continue testing that old version in GitHub > Actions. That might be worth considering. Yes, that is true. Considering that 16.04 has passed its expiration date for standard support a few years ago, I am not sure how many more years of practical/unsupported use and testing we would be getting by giving cycles for the release in CI, though. Thanks.