Re: [PATCH 3/4] ci: use more recent linux32 image

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 12, 2024, 11:22 UTC
Message-ID: <20240912112242.GA622312@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <ZuLFPxsDiMB9UBhF@pks.im>

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 12:41:03PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

Show 39 quoted lines

> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 05:47:30AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > diff --git a/.github/workflows/main.yml b/.github/workflows/main.yml
> > index 97f9b06310..db8e8f75a4 100644
> > --- a/.github/workflows/main.yml
> > +++ b/.github/workflows/main.yml
> > @@ -339,8 +339,8 @@ jobs:
> >            image: alpine
> >            distro: alpine-latest
> >          - jobname: linux32
> > -          image: daald/ubuntu32:xenial
> > -          distro: ubuntu32-16.04
> > +          image: i386/ubuntu:focal
> > +          distro: ubuntu32-20.04
> >          - jobname: pedantic
> >            image: fedora
> >            distro: fedora-latest
> 
> We could counteract the loss of testing against Ubuntu 16.04 by adding
> it to GitLab CI instead:
> 
>     diff --git a/.gitlab-ci.yml b/.gitlab-ci.yml
>     index 2589098eff7..80b1668ebeb 100644
>     --- a/.gitlab-ci.yml
>     +++ b/.gitlab-ci.yml
>     @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ test:linux:
>            fi
>        parallel:
>          matrix:
>     +      - jobname: linux-old
>     +        image: ubuntu:16.04
>     +        CC: gcc
>            - jobname: linux-sha256
>              image: ubuntu:latest
>              CC: clang
> 
> I didn't test it, but it should work alright. GitLab doesn't put any
> additional executables into the container, so it is entirely self
> contained. Let me know in case you think this is a good idea and I'll
> run a CI pipeline against this change.

That seems like a good thing to do to mitigate the loss. In a perfect world we'd have all platforms running all the tests, just because it helps align the work between finding and fixing (i.e., I might introduce a bug and not even know it is failing, and you have to spend time reporting it to me). But the world isn't perfect, so finding out about my bug _eventually_ is OK. :)

> It's not 32 bit, but at least we continue to verify that Git builds
> against old distros.

I think that's OK. AFAICT this was just another case of overloading CI jobs with multiple independent variables (and leaving people to wonder if any failure was because of the 32-bit nature, or because it was old). Having a dedicated "old" job makes that more obvious.

-Peff