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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=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 4EBD9C47247 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 17:57:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E2620735 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 17:57:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="ARQulAHy" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730438AbgEER5s (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2020 13:57:48 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:59894 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730093AbgEER5r (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2020 13:57:47 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CB4C58BC; Tue, 5 May 2020 13:57:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=3FRul3JJ0ecGC+mcvU5w/yXLTiI=; b=ARQulA Hyjv9IF82z6O0oJb+ho55M7t+IuDbpt5Dgm83GtY9pKUEhAhcoU+WLwLyuChY4wv R7yvnndp43xigGB86gzauFye/NWOSjqykyMf0CusIyGiptV3QD+8RD4/xldOFdzs UsyiAIUUa7yC35WbWz/0vb1JIrv3IO8Kw/bhw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=LOI0e4fqry0qBoHddqhX/tW+IhzNXJL7 dvNYHFauaS07NDoCGKwAe+ce0KIZhvWH2DrCK9Peldaz5B0WVZwymK/Ut0GlVT8i FC4XdaGjWycsxk3dAOCQaOAUJ/ueY6Ke2Q/z69KXAqHD02yDHOdCMeWyBENmq1er kixa6dCVqPA= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8C4C58BA; Tue, 5 May 2020 13:57:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8350C58B9; Tue, 5 May 2020 13:57:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Taylor Blau , =?utf-8?B?xJBvw6BuIFRy4bqnbiBDw7RuZw==?= Danh , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Hostetler , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] CI: limit GitHub Actions to designated branches References: <20200504150105.GB11373@coredump.intra.peff.net> <73de97dfebfccabe9f1bf32ea41aea5008a949cd.1588607262.git.congdanhqx@gmail.com> <20200504162311.GE12842@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200504215824.GC45250@syl.local> <20200504233634.GB39798@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200505002055.GC64230@syl.local> <20200505164326.GA64077@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 10:57:39 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200505164326.GA64077@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 5 May 2020 12:43:26 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EA4BA172-8EF9-11EA-821D-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > But that is missing the point of the exercise, no? The question of what > gitster/git should do was a side conversation. The purpose of Dscho's > original patch and Danh's followup was to allow anybody to choose which > branches in their own fork. I.e.: > >> * Actions is running on all branches, of all forks, all the time. > > This is how it works now, and is the exact thing we are trying to fix. Thanks for clarifying and refocusing the discussion. I am onboard. It seems to me that there are only two and half approaches, then: - Branch-build is opt-in; only branches that match selected, known, and fixed patterns will be built (e.g. 'maint', 'maint-*', 'master', 'next', 'pu', and 'for-ci/*'). - Branch-build is opt-out; branches that match selected, known, and fixed patterns will be excluded (e.g., '*-wip'). - If you do not want your branches want to be skipped, you need to tweak the commit at the tip (e.g. mark with '[skip ci]' log message, munging .github/workflows/ in the tree). The last one is only there for completeness. I do not think mucking with the objects recorded in the history, whether it is a tweaked log message or tweaked tree contents, is a good way to do this. More random ideas... Would it be too much hassle to use notes for a thing like this? Perhaps push out with refs/notes/skip-ci note attached to a commit you do not want to be built? I have a feeling that it gives way overkill flexibility with little gain (probably too cumbersome to manage). Does push into GitHub repository offer an ability to pass arbitrary push option, to which actions that trigger "on: push" event can react?