Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> Do they have to shout that loudly in the name? >> >> We could rename these jobs to e.g. 'linux-clang-py2' and the like, but >> I think it would bring little benefit, if any. In our Travis CI >> builds these Linux/OSX Clang/GCC jobs come from the build matrix, >> therefore the jobname is not visible on the Travis CI web interface or >> API, only in the build logs. There are some pages on Azure Pipelines >> that do show the jobname (and some that could, but hide it instead), >> but it's just too convoluted (or sometimes even impossible, well, for >> me anyway) to get there. >> >> And if the requested Python binary can't be found, which will >> eventually happen with 'python2', then the non-zero exit code of >> 'which' will abort the build, no matter how the job is called. > > I am mostly worried about contributors whose PRs break for "magic" > reasons. If it is not clear where the difference between `linux-gcc` and > `linux-clang` lies, that can cause unintended frustration, and I do not > want to cause that. So, what, if any, decision have we reached? If linux-gcc and linux-clang labels are not visible, linux-clang-py2 and osx-py3 would not be, either, so...
