Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> It wasn't quite obvious why we justify spending 370 minutes one more >> time only to rerun 30-second job, though. > > True. > > And this is not a new problem. Every time anything happens in those > `osx-gcc` or `osx-clang` jobs (e.g. that transient problem with the broken > pipes in t5516 [*1*], that's a fun one), a full re-run is necessary, or > else the commit and/or PR will remain marked as broken. > > In other words, while it is totally appropriate for me to explain this to > you in this here thread because it came up as a tangent, it would be > inappropriate to stick that explanation into this patch's commit message. > We do not make a habit of adding tangents that came up during patch > reviews into commit messages, and I do not intend to start such a habit > here, either. I do not agree; a brief mention "even though piling more and more on the primary workflow would make it even less convenient to re-run, it is already so bad that another one would not hurt too much more" would be a clue good enough to motivate others to do something about it if they feel like it.
