On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 9:03 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > No, it was not intended. It was not even intended to integrate Scalar this > > tightly with Git's CI, but since you did not move along `js/scalar` into > > `next` for the past weeks, when no reviewer had anything to add to the > > actual code in `contrib/scalar/` nor were there any objections to > > integrate it, I made the mistake of assuming that you agreed with Ævar > > that such a tight integration into Git's CI was desired. > > OK, sorry to hear that we had miscommunication. > > I took the lack of comments an indication that people are not either > interested in it, or viewing it as not-quite-ready-yet and waiting > for a "more or less done" version. Sorry that my work project rendered me unable to respond for over a month. > I think the CI updates from Ævar would be one of the things we'd > have early in 'next' in this cycle, so if the topic does not play > nice with it, the perception that it is not yet part of the regular > CI testing would continue, I am afraid. I think I missed the answer. I believe Johannes was curious if he reverted the recent CI testing of scalar he added in v7 (which would as a side effect make it play nicely with Ævar's CI updates), if the resulting version of js/scalar would be acceptable for next. (If my opinion matters: I'd be in favor. In more detail: Personally, while I think CI testing would be nice once we have a functionally useful scalar, the CI tests of this early version aren't really netting us anything. And they're blocking future scalar series unnecessarily. Johannes already said he had planned CI testing for a future series, so I'd rather just take this version of js/scalar minus the CI integration for next.)
