Re: [PATCH 5/7] ci: make test slicing consistent across Meson/Make

> Hi Patrick,
> 
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2026, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> 
> > In the preceding commit we have adjusted test slicing to be one-based
> > when using the "ci/run-test-slice.sh" script. But we also have an
> > equivalent script for Meson that is still zero-based, which is of course
> > inconsistent.
> > 
> > Adapt the script to be one-based, as well, and adapt the GitHub workflow
> > accordingly. Note that GitLab doesn't yet use the script, so it does not
> > need to be adapted. This will change in the next commit though.
> 
> This seems to require the following to be squashed in:
> 
> -- snip --
> From 677370c8cd3b73358713a0efac6bb573b347d53f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2026 22:12:27 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] fixup??? ci: make test slicing consistent across Meson/Make
> 
> This seems to be needed to let the first "win+VS test" job pass. See
> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/actions/runs/22153194896/job/64053953314#step:5:70
> ("fatal: slice must be in the range 1 <= slice <= 10, got '0'").

> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
>  .github/workflows/main.yml | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/.github/workflows/main.yml b/.github/workflows/main.yml
> index 412842eb3e2..42585fff779 100644
> --- a/.github/workflows/main.yml
> +++ b/.github/workflows/main.yml
> @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ jobs:
>        shell: bash
>        env:
>          NO_SVN_TESTS: 1
> -      run: . /etc/profile && ci/run-test-slice.sh ${{matrix.nr}} 10
> +      run: . /etc/profile && ci/run-test-slice.sh $((${{matrix.nr}}+1)) 10
>      - name: print test failures
>        if: failure() && env.FAILED_TEST_ARTIFACTS != ''
>        shell: bash
> -- snap --
> 
> This here run proves that this change fixes the CI failure:
> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/actions/runs/22157880378/job/64067214717#step:5:70
> 
> Patrick, would you mind adopting this amendment into your patch?