On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 04:12:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 01:47:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> I am not sure how annoying people will find the V=1 output. It is > >> irrelevant that it is in a collapsible section. What matters is if > >> it helps those who *need* to expand that collapsible section to take > >> a look, or if it clutteres what they have to wade through. > >> > >> When studying a build failure, I rarely found the exact command line > >> given by V=1 helpful, but YMMV---while I am not 100% convinced, let's > >> take the series as-is, because not losing information may sometimes > >> help even when we need to visually filter out extra clutter. > > > > I had the same thought. I have used V=1 for debugging, but usually > > debugging Makefile changes locally (i.e., why is my option not being > > passed correctly). I don't think I've ever wanted it for a CI run. > > > > And I do think people see the output. It may be in a collapsible section > > on the site, but: > > > > - you'd uncollapse that section if there is a build failure, and now > > your error messages are that much harder to find > > > > - if you look at the output outside of the site, you'll see the > > uncollapsed sections. And I usually view them in a local pager using > > curl[1]. > > > > I guess I won't know until I see it in action, but I have a pretty > > strong suspicion that it will be annoying. > > https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/9424299208/job/25964282150#step:6:573 > > I _knew_ that this run will fail compiling the updated timestamp > parsing logic in date.c but it still took me a while to find the > exact error. > > I typed "date.o" in the search box, which showed 5 hits (first two > are false hits to fuzz-date.o and test-date.o), with > > 3rd hit on l.566 "gcc -o date.o ... long long command line" > 4th hit on l.594 "Makefile:2758: recipe for target 'date.o' failed" > 5th hit on l.595 "make: *** [date.o] Error 1" > > Nitice that the error message with "date.c" is on 571 but with each > line being very bloated to around 10 physical lines on screen, it is > very far from either 3rd or 4th hit. > > So, this time it was annoying. But I suspect I'd be praising the > wisdom of using V=1 if I were hunting for some breakage caused by > tweaks in command line generation that broke the build or something, > so I dunno. I'll just drop this patch for now. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
