Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2022, #07; Wed, 25)

From: Victoria Dye <vdye@github.com>
Date: May 26, 2022, 18:30 UTC
Message-ID: <8b57f907-3db1-9fe1-d582-e2d05acbe5ce@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4k1c1a34.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 37 quoted lines

> Victoria Dye <vdye@github.com> writes:
> 
>>> * js/ci-github-workflow-markup (2022-05-21) 12 commits
>>>  - ci: call `finalize_test_case_output` a little later
>>>  - ci(github): mention where the full logs can be found
>>>  - ci: use `--github-workflow-markup` in the GitHub workflow
>>>  - ci(github): avoid printing test case preamble twice
>>>  - ci(github): skip the logs of the successful test cases
>>>  - ci: optionally mark up output in the GitHub workflow
>>>  - ci/run-build-and-tests: add some structure to the GitHub workflow output
>>>  - ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the GitHub workflow
>>>  - ci/run-build-and-tests: take a more high-level view
>>>  - test(junit): avoid line feeds in XML attributes
>>>  - tests: refactor --write-junit-xml code
>>>  - ci: fix code style
>>>
>>>  Update the GitHub workflow support to make it quicker to get to the
>>>  failing test.
>>>
>>>  Will merge to 'next'?
>>>  source: <pull.1117.v3.git.1653171536.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
>>
>> The latest version of this nicely addressed the feedback I originally had,
>> particularly in improving page loading time. It's still slower than before
>> this series, but IMO it's manageable (especially taking into account the
>> improved information accessibility). 
>>
>> I don't see (or have) any other unaddressed concerns, so I'm in favor of
>> moving it to 'next'.
> 
> I see Ævar sent another reroll of "rebuild the base" and "then
> rebase a (hopefully) equivalent of this series on top", but I think
> it is unhealthy to keep doing that.  Does the latest "rebuild the
> base" part look unsalvageably and fundamentally bad that it is not
> worth our time to consider joining forces to polish it sufficiently
> and then build this on top?
>

My impression of 'ab/ci-setup-simplify' is that its core changes are either unrelated to, or at least not mutually exclusive with, the 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup' series. While Ævar has sent an example/RFC with one series rebased on top of the other, I don't see the two as inextricably linked, or even really comparable. Because of that, I don't think it would be fair to either series if we continued to hold up *both* because of different levels of consensus, review, etc.

As for my thoughts on each series, I do still think 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup' is ready for 'next' (for the reasons I sent earlier). I think 'ab/ci-setup-simplify' needs more review - especially given its length and the variety of changes - to ensure it doesn't introduce regressions or hurt developer quality-of-life. I've personally had a difficult time making sense of the series enough to review it, so I can't confidently judge it one way or another myself.

Show 5 quoted lines

> If that is the case, then I am OK to merge this to 'next' to cast it
> in stone, and then the let "rebuild the base" part once die, to be
> reborn as many "tweak the way things work to (clarify|optimize) X"
> follow-up topics.
>

I'm not sure 'ab/ci-setup-simplify' would need to "die", more that it would be adjusted to rebase on top of an updated 'next' (including 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup'). That said, a re-sent version focusing on its own optimizations/improvements (rather than a comparisons against an IMO largely unrelated series) would almost certainly benefit both the series and its readers.

> Thanks.