Le mardi 24 août 2021, 11:27:44 CEST Johannes Schindelin a écrit : > Hi Junio, > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > > >> For a push event, it will scan commits one by one. If a commit does not > > >> look like a l10n commit (no file in "po/" has been changed), it will > > >> immediately fail without checking for further commits. While for a > > >> pull_request event, all new introduced commits will be scanned. > > >> > > >> "git-po-helper" will generate two kinds of suggestions, errors and > > >> warnings. A l10n contributor should try to fix all the errors, and > > >> should pay attention to the warnings. All the errors and warnings will > > >> be reported in the last step of the l10n workflow as two message groups. > > >> For a pull_request event, will create additional comments in pull > > >> request to report the result. > > > > > > It is a good idea to automate this. > > > > > > I am a bit concerned that the `ci-config` approach, even if we use it in > > > the Git project itself, is quite cumbersome to use, though. So I hope that > > > we can find an alternative solution. > > > > > > One such solution could be to make the `git-po-helper` job contingent on > > > part of the repository name. For example: > > > > > > git-po-helper: > > > if: endsWith(github.repository, '/git-po') > > > [...] > > > > > > would skip the job unless the target repository's name is `git-po`. > > > > Nice. > > > > Can this be made into a matter purely local to git-l10n/git-po > > repository and not git/git repository? I am wondering if we can ee if > > the current repository is git-l10n/git-po or its fork and run it only if > > that is true. > > The biggest problem is that there are forks of `git-l10n/git-po` that > accept PRs in their own right. That is what I tried to address by using > just the repository name, without the org/user prefix. > > Ciao, > Dscho > Well, I'm in this case, plus my repo is a fork of git/git. Would it not possible to formally require the presence of a "dumb" secret to run this rule? JN
