Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Huh; I'm not sure that I'm sold on the idea of a 'for-ci' namespace > here. In addition to running 'make test' on patches locally before I > send them, I find it tremendously convenient for GitHub to run them for > me when I push 'tb/' branches up to 'ttaylorr/git'. > > So, while the above is more-or-less what I'd expect the monitored list > of branches to look like (at least, ignoring the missing 'for-ci/**' > bits), I wish that I could also build every branch that I push up to my > fork. > > Of course, I don't want to maintain a one-patch difference between > ttaylorr/git@master and git/git@master, so I wonder if we could get a > little more creative with these rules and actually run Actions on > *every* branch, but introduce a new first step which stops the rest of > the actions run (so that in practice we're not running CI on > non-integration branches in Junio's tree). Hmph, what are we trying to avoid by using the for-ci/ convention? If this is only a reaction to what I said earlier (i.e. "building everything in github.com/gitster/git/ has no value to me"), then I suspect it may be an over-engineered solution to a problem that does not exist, and harms people like you. I could just go there and turn off GitHub Actions for that repository instead. Or are there more issues being addressed with the "testing branches are opt-in, unless a pull request against git/git explicitly says it is ready to be tested" approach?
