Hi Gábor, On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 02:22:10PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> > > writes: > > > > > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> > > > > > > Let's not decide in the generic ci/ script how many jobs to run in > > > parallel; it is easy enough to hand that information down via the > > > `MAKEFLAGS`. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> > > > --- > > > ci/run-build-and-tests.sh | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh b/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh > > > index db342bb6a8..80d72d120f 100755 > > > --- a/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh > > > +++ b/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh > > > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ > > > > > > ln -s "$cache_dir/.prove" t/.prove > > > > > > -make --jobs=2 > > > +make > > > make --quiet test > > > if test "$jobname" = "linux-gcc" > > > then > > > > As there is no assignment to MAKEFLAGS in this patch, is it intended > > for this step to change behaviour (possibly with the intention to > > add "default 2 jobs at least under travis" back later in the > > series)? Not that it matters too much, but it is unnerving to see > > that the proposed log message promising "it is easy enough" while > > not actually doing so, without expressing an intention. > > Furthermore, there are several other 'ci/run-<something>.sh' scripts > that still run 'make -j N'. Indeed. I removed those `--jobs=2` options from those. Granted, I did not audit whether there were `make` calls that did not have any `-j` option, but I think it would be safe to parallelize all of them via `MAKEFLAGS`. Ciao, Dscho
