Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] ci: detect more warnings via `-Og`

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 01:47:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> I am not sure how annoying people will find the V=1 output.  It is
> >> irrelevant that it is in a collapsible section.  What matters is if
> >> it helps those who *need* to expand that collapsible section to take
> >> a look, or if it clutteres what they have to wade through.
> >> 
> >> When studying a build failure, I rarely found the exact command line
> >> given by V=1 helpful, but YMMV---while I am not 100% convinced, let's
> >> take the series as-is, because not losing information may sometimes
> >> help even when we need to visually filter out extra clutter.
> >
> > I had the same thought. I have used V=1 for debugging, but usually
> > debugging Makefile changes locally (i.e., why is my option not being
> > passed correctly). I don't think I've ever wanted it for a CI run.
> >
> > And I do think people see the output. It may be in a collapsible section
> > on the site, but:
> >
> >   - you'd uncollapse that section if there is a build failure, and now
> >     your error messages are that much harder to find
> >
> >   - if you look at the output outside of the site, you'll see the
> >     uncollapsed sections. And I usually view them in a local pager using
> >     curl[1].
> >
> > I guess I won't know until I see it in action, but I have a pretty
> > strong suspicion that it will be annoying.
> 
> https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/9424299208/job/25964282150#step:6:573
> 
> I _knew_ that this run will fail compiling the updated timestamp
> parsing logic in date.c but it still took me a while to find the
> exact error.
> 
> I typed "date.o" in the search box, which showed 5 hits (first two
> are false hits to fuzz-date.o and test-date.o), with
> 
>     3rd hit on l.566 "gcc -o date.o ... long long command line"
>     4th hit on l.594 "Makefile:2758: recipe for target 'date.o' failed"
>     5th hit on l.595 "make: *** [date.o] Error 1"
> 
> Nitice that the error message with "date.c" is on 571 but with each
> line being very bloated to around 10 physical lines on screen, it is
> very far from either 3rd or 4th hit.
> 
> So, this time it was annoying.  But I suspect I'd be praising the
> wisdom of using V=1 if I were hunting for some breakage caused by
> tweaks in command line generation that broke the build or something,
> so I dunno.