Hi Hans, On Sat, 13 Nov 2021, hakre via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: hakre <hanskrentel@xxxxxxxx> As per https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches#sign-off: Please don’t hide your real name. I strongly suspect your real name to be Hans Krentel, not hakre. > Part of these two recent commits > > 1. a066a90db6 (ci(check-whitespace): restrict to the intended commits, > 2021-07-15) > 2. cc00362125 (ci(check-whitespace): stop requiring a read/write token, > 2021-07-15) > > are well written messages that reflect the changes (compare: [1]). > > Unfortunately those commits left the description in top file comments > unchanged which are still showing the previous picture. > > To better display the current workflow upfront, those comments now > reflect that: > > 1. full (not shallow) clone to steadily check the intended commits > 2. communicated result is the exit status (not a comment in the PR) > > [1]: https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches#describe-changes > CC: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: hakre <hanskrentel@xxxxxxxx> > --- > ci(check-whitespace): update stale file top comments > > Part of these two recent commits > > 1. a066a90db6 (ci(check-whitespace): restrict to the intended commits, > 2021-07-15) > 2. cc00362125 (ci(check-whitespace): stop requiring a read/write token, > 2021-07-15) > > are well written messages that reflect the changes (compare: 1 > [https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches#describe-changes]). > > Unfortunately those commits left the description in top file comments > unchanged which are still showing the previous picture. > > To better display the current workflow upfront, those comments now > reflect that: > > 1. full (not shallow) clone to steadily check the intended commits > 2. communicated result is the exit status (not a comment in the PR) > > Signed-off-by: hakre hanskrentel@xxxxxxxx If you send a new iteration, please replace the first comment on your PR by a cover letter. You can also delete the comment's contents instead. > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-git-1138%2Fhakre%2Fpatch-1-v1 > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-git-1138/hakre/patch-1-v1 > Pull-Request: https://github.com/git/git/pull/1138 > > .github/workflows/check-whitespace.yml | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/.github/workflows/check-whitespace.yml b/.github/workflows/check-whitespace.yml > index 8c4358d805c..2dce03bc479 100644 > --- a/.github/workflows/check-whitespace.yml > +++ b/.github/workflows/check-whitespace.yml > @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ > name: check-whitespace > > -# Get the repo with the commits(+1) in the series. > +# Get the repo with all commits to steady catch the series. I am not a native English speaker, but "to steady catch" strikes me as not quite English. I would suggest something like this instead: Get the repository with all commits to ensure that we can analyze all of the commits contributed via the Pull Request. > # Process `git log --check` output to extract just the check errors. > -# Add a comment to the pull request with the check errors. > +# Give status 2 on check errors. Is it really interesting that the exit code 2 is used? Or is it more interesting that the job will exit with failure if the check produces errors? I think it would sound better as: Exit with failure upon white-space issues. Ciao, Johannes > > on: > pull_request: > > base-commit: 5fbd2fc5997dfa4d4593a862fe729b1e7a89bcf8 > -- > gitgitgadget >
