Re: [PATCH 0/9] ci: make Git's GitHub workflow output much more helpful
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Feb 22, 2022, 10:26 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2202221124070.4418@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <220221.867d9od48e.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
Hi Ævar,
On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 26 quoted lines
> On Sun, Feb 20 2022, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > >> > >> > I notice that you did not take this into `seen` yet. I find that a little > >> > sad because it would potentially have helped others to figure out the > >> > failure in the latest `seen`: > >> > https://github.com/git/git/runs/5255378056?check_suite_focus=true#step:5:162 > >> > > >> > Essentially, a recent patch introduces hard-coded SHA-1 hashes in t3007.3. > >> > >> I saw the thread, I saw a few patches were commented on, and a few > >> were left unanswered, but one was replied by the original submitter > >> with a "Good catch!", making me expect the topic to be discussed or > >> rerolled to become ready relatively soon. > > > > Yes, I have local changes, but I had really hoped that this patch series > > would get a chance to prove its point by example, i.e. by offering the > > improved output for the failures in `seen`. I hoped that because I think > > that those improvements speak for themselves when you see them. > > I think it's a good idea to get wider expose in "seen", "next" etc. for > topics where the bottleneck is lack of feedback due to lack of wider > exposure.
Having this in `seen` will give the patch series a chance to show in real life how it improves the process of analyzing regressions.
Ciao, Johannes