On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:49:19PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 10:17:33AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:07:08AM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > you should probably choose a less generic name for the jobs, at least > > > debian-*. > > > > The names are all preexisting, so I cannot change them. > > > aren't they coming from the yml file? would adjusting them in the company > setup be an unreasonable effort? They come from the ".gitlab-ci.yml" file, but I have to reuse the exact names that GitHub Actions already uses or otherwise we're not testing for the same thing. The preexisting CI scripts for Git expect exactly those names. I do agree that they may benefit from a redesign so that they're more explicit. But I don't think this patch series here is where we should do that refactoring. > > I don't quite know what you mean by counter-intuitive patch structure. > > > it looked like you're adding the function to the github branch, not to the > freshly added gitlab branch. of course that's just a diffing artifact. Ah, thought you meant the larger "structure of how things were layed out". Agreed and fixed in v2 of the patch series. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
