Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Which means that the likelihood of a run to fail increases with the number > of jobs in said run (even innocuous problems such as transient failures to > download an Ubuntu package), and it also makes it much more painful to > re-run the entire thing because you may well end up wasting a grand total > of ~370 minutes even if only a 30-second-job would need to be re-run. > > Having said that, I think you're right and the upside of keeping things > together may outweigh that downside. I wasn't make a request or a demand to change or not to change anything, so in this particular exchange there was no point where I was right (or wrong, for that matter ;-). I was asking if there was a solid reasoning behind the split, and if there is, I am perfectly happy to see it done as a separate workflow with the log message that explains why it is separate. I am also perfectly fine with this rolled into the primary one, with clear reasoning behind the choice recorded in the log message. Thanks.
