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=-5.8 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 04671C54FCB for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 21:24:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3BD2098B for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 21:24:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="x0dD95sg" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726101AbgDXVYv (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:24:51 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:65115 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726061AbgDXVYv (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:24:51 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AD6D5BBE; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:24:49 -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=8sGkinVm4SjB/9aaCak0WQILff8=; b=x0dD95 sgoDbQQ87FUdHAbzxEt6R2HHRUVLg8Jun2/bFSHlOqzIKbtpzNWIIdH9YUcnCkCd HrMu5JvHcMCId18VIcph5eMo00Ied6YJGm2L0sYucWL5G8fuG6IcqnsZIvLaBAqz uXF+RAjuWUzHqXLMIKSi9THPGZ+zHOEw6OwrM= 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=UJxm4q9atm95ccHBcH7fpoM5OK7T/ZCp nxhOQQD0rdLZqn+OB3ARkZSmkwIX23LA4/8kKoCA89Na5CHaG6uyFuRJP0dbW15M osSDRk3eVUJ32NY4+AEgSpBtQ2hseQeaxnJ/hNpGlW+wgaDJQuhpmW5J1/dNgBib C0FrXJPPrd0= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA51D5BBD; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:24:49 -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-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4AE7D5BBC; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:24:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci: fix GitHub workflow when on a tagged revision References: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:24:45 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 24 Apr 2020 23:12:11 +0200 (CEST)") 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: 05BCDC36-8672-11EA-BF8E-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" >> writes: >> >> > However, our GitHub workflow does not trigger on tags, therefore, this >> > logic results in a missing build for that revision. >> >> Thanks for noticing. The arrangement we had, which essentially said >> "we know we will always build tagged version, so a push of a branch >> that happens to have a tagged version at the tip can be ignored", >> served us wonderfully. Now the maintainers of projects (not just >> this one) are forbidden from tagging the tip of master, queue >> something else on top and push the result out, as it won't build or >> test the tagged version, which is a bit sad. > > Nobody forbids this... ;-) > > And I was wrong, our current GitHub workflow _is_ triggered by tags. See > e.g. https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/actions/runs/83103626 which > was triggered by v2.26.2.windows.1. > > However, you also see that it failed due to the reason I described in the > commit message. > > I guess that we should either go with this patch (which would trigger full > runs also on tags), or we could alternatively trigger only on branch > pushes (and not tag pushes)? Hmph, even if we were to go with this patch (which should be safer), we'd definitely need an updated log message, then. Thanks for double-checking.