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=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 E2EFBC47247 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B168620707 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="p041MgpC" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728153AbgEDWww (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2020 18:52:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:64029 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726773AbgEDWww (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2020 18:52:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F93BE079; Mon, 4 May 2020 18:52:50 -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=VY0D6AzDX/MZ56OPRxaxEYBRKKQ=; b=p041Mg pCnQUO3qWW5GWKmt/cyc//VAlMSrEwNLqdg7GYZZlJG3U2OiA9II0yYPUL3HOHat DIihl2oeOFqGRnpI3nNa2P8HxPzvLk3oAxOZ7D1Nvb71ODm6K+KNqgcr96NuUs0X eR6U6Fe9pKhRTaDJiWfLvZWgzyLUhp1ua3qng= 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=lmjugwxCEeJa9NKRu/cA7AM6mgZiqINB UpiUiSS17rKXhr9I41wuMYGoeUh6wVrcDR8xCQARSDXq2NAQah5XFEhRPYoHUkaw ZyF1nReHI00CXyWa9YSvDlj5XfhiZzWbIruHeOXKYJ9SYAbq7zkekcfsyc0H3UoZ iDcKra7IrT8= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72590BE078; Mon, 4 May 2020 18:52:50 -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 921F0BE077; Mon, 4 May 2020 18:52:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: Jeff King , =?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> Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 15:52:44 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200504215824.GC45250@syl.local> (Taylor Blau's message of "Mon, 4 May 2020 15:58:24 -0600") 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: F8D4FA0E-8E59-11EA-8077-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > Huh; I'm not sure that I'm sold on the idea of a 'for-ci' namespace > here. In addition to running 'make test' on patches locally before I > send them, I find it tremendously convenient for GitHub to run them for > me when I push 'tb/' branches up to 'ttaylorr/git'. > > So, while the above is more-or-less what I'd expect the monitored list > of branches to look like (at least, ignoring the missing 'for-ci/**' > bits), I wish that I could also build every branch that I push up to my > fork. > > Of course, I don't want to maintain a one-patch difference between > ttaylorr/git@master and git/git@master, so I wonder if we could get a > little more creative with these rules and actually run Actions on > *every* branch, but introduce a new first step which stops the rest of > the actions run (so that in practice we're not running CI on > non-integration branches in Junio's tree). Hmph, what are we trying to avoid by using the for-ci/ convention? If this is only a reaction to what I said earlier (i.e. "building everything in github.com/gitster/git/ has no value to me"), then I suspect it may be an over-engineered solution to a problem that does not exist, and harms people like you. I could just go there and turn off GitHub Actions for that repository instead. Or are there more issues being addressed with the "testing branches are opt-in, unless a pull request against git/git explicitly says it is ready to be tested" approach?