On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 03:52:44PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. It is a reaction to that, yes. It would be nice to have a middle-ground where you can run Actions on the official integration branches, but contributors such as myself run Actions on *every* branch of their fork. It does feel over-engineered, yes. I would not be surprised if Actions supports something like this more directly, and I just don't know about it. > 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? Thanks, Taylor
