Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > 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. It wasn't quite obvious why we justify spending 370 minutes one more time only to rerun 30-second job, though.
