Hi Junio, On Wed, 14 Jul 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. I do not think that it would be an improvement to defend the default choice (i.e. to add this new job to `.github/workflows/main.yml`) in the commit message. It is the default for new CI stuff to go, after all, and we do not need to clutter the message by stating the obvious. Ciao, Dscho
