Re: [PATCH 1/1] ci: split the `linux-gcc` job into two jobs

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 25, 2019, 08:56 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1906251053160.44@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1906142051300.44@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Hi Gábor,

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 42 quoted lines

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 06:51:04PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > >
> > > > SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 05:53:51AM -0700, Johannes Schindelin via
> > > > > GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > > >> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This job was abused to not only run the test suite in a regular
> > > > >> way but also with all kinds of `GIT_TEST_*` options set to
> > > > >> non-default values.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Let's split this into two
> > > > >
> > > > > Why...?
> > > > >
> > > > >> with the `linux-gcc` job running the default test suite, and
> > > > >> the newly-introduced `linux-gcc-extra` job running the test
> > > > >> suite in the "special" ways.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Technically, we would have to build Git only once, but it would
> > > > >> not be obvious how to teach Travis to transport build
> > > > >> artifacts, so we keep it simple and just build Git in both
> > > > >> jobs.
> > > >
> > > > I had the same reaction.
> > >
> > > So basically you are saying that the cover letter was the wrong
> > > location for this:
> > >
> > > 	For people like me, who often look at our CI builds, it is hard to
> > > 	tell whether test suite failures in the linux-gcc job stem from
> > > 	the first make test run, or from the second one, after setting all
> > > 	kinds of GIT_TEST_* variables to non-default values.
> >
> > Is this really an issue in practice?
>
> I don't think that this is the right question.

I still think that this is the wrong question.

To put more water down the drain, I would like to challenge you to look at this build and tell me as fast as you can what half of the linux-gcc job fails, and whether the other half of the job fails, too, or whether the test cases succeed there, and if so, why:

https://dev.azure.com/gitgitgadget/git/_build/results?buildId=11410&view=ms.vss-test-web.build-test-results-tab

We really need to split linux-gcc. It's not right that it throws two completely separate concerns into the same bucket.

Ciao, Dscho