Junio C Hamano wrote: > Victoria Dye <vdye@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> * js/ci-github-workflow-markup (2022-05-21) 12 commits >>> - ci: call `finalize_test_case_output` a little later >>> - ci(github): mention where the full logs can be found >>> - ci: use `--github-workflow-markup` in the GitHub workflow >>> - ci(github): avoid printing test case preamble twice >>> - ci(github): skip the logs of the successful test cases >>> - ci: optionally mark up output in the GitHub workflow >>> - ci/run-build-and-tests: add some structure to the GitHub workflow output >>> - ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the GitHub workflow >>> - ci/run-build-and-tests: take a more high-level view >>> - test(junit): avoid line feeds in XML attributes >>> - tests: refactor --write-junit-xml code >>> - ci: fix code style >>> >>> Update the GitHub workflow support to make it quicker to get to the >>> failing test. >>> >>> Will merge to 'next'? >>> source: <pull.1117.v3.git.1653171536.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> The latest version of this nicely addressed the feedback I originally had, >> particularly in improving page loading time. It's still slower than before >> this series, but IMO it's manageable (especially taking into account the >> improved information accessibility). >> >> I don't see (or have) any other unaddressed concerns, so I'm in favor of >> moving it to 'next'. > > I see Ævar sent another reroll of "rebuild the base" and "then > rebase a (hopefully) equivalent of this series on top", but I think > it is unhealthy to keep doing that. Does the latest "rebuild the > base" part look unsalvageably and fundamentally bad that it is not > worth our time to consider joining forces to polish it sufficiently > and then build this on top? > My impression of 'ab/ci-setup-simplify' is that its core changes are either unrelated to, or at least not mutually exclusive with, the 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup' series. While Ævar has sent an example/RFC with one series rebased on top of the other, I don't see the two as inextricably linked, or even really comparable. Because of that, I don't think it would be fair to either series if we continued to hold up *both* because of different levels of consensus, review, etc. As for my thoughts on each series, I do still think 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup' is ready for 'next' (for the reasons I sent earlier). I think 'ab/ci-setup-simplify' needs more review - especially given its length and the variety of changes - to ensure it doesn't introduce regressions or hurt developer quality-of-life. I've personally had a difficult time making sense of the series enough to review it, so I can't confidently judge it one way or another myself. > If that is the case, then I am OK to merge this to 'next' to cast it > in stone, and then the let "rebuild the base" part once die, to be > reborn as many "tweak the way things work to (clarify|optimize) X" > follow-up topics. > I'm not sure 'ab/ci-setup-simplify' would need to "die", more that it would be adjusted to rebase on top of an updated 'next' (including 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup'). That said, a re-sent version focusing on its own optimizations/improvements (rather than a comparisons against an IMO largely unrelated series) would almost certainly benefit both the series and its readers. > Thanks.
