Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The downside, of course, is that a failure that will happen on every > platform will mean wasted CPU to trigger the same failure over and over. > But: > > - I rarely see that myself, because I wouldn't bother pushing up to CI > until "make test" passed locally. So usually I'm finding portability > issues via CI. Other people might be different, though. This is the same for me. > - we already have the Windows tests in a separate matrix anyway, so a > failure on Linux would run the whole Windows suite (which is an > order of magnitude more expensive) But they tend to finish earlier than OSX and Ubuntu jobs; their sharding of the tests into 10 jobs may probably have something to do with this. > - even within the Windows matrix, I think running the rest of the > tests after a failure is still valuable. If there's a second > failure, you save a round-trip to CI (so it doesn't reduce CPU, but > it may help latency to reach a passing state).
