On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 03:49:22PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > To help the idea of catching before things hit next, it probably > would make the most sense to test the tip of the 'jch' branch, which > is somewhere between the 'master' and the 'seen' branches and > contains a bit more topics than the 'next' branch does. The branch > is usually what I use for my work every day, so even though it may > have acquired new leaks and UBs that would not cause troubles in > practice, it should functionally be a lot more stable and usable > than the tip of 'seen'. I've switched to basing my branch on 'jch', which did turn up a few new hits (lots of uninteresting ones, but a few that may be important; I've responded in the relevant threads). What I'm most worried about is that it does have leaks or UB. My daily workflow is usually to build my personal branch (previously 'next' now 'jch', plus my own topics) and stop everything to investigate and fix if CI fails. If I start getting CI failures for other peoples' topics, then I'll have even less time to do my own backlogged ones. ;) Right now you are shouldering a lot of that during your integration runs. And if it were even putting some of your load on me, that might be a good tradeoff. But I have a feeling it is just putting the same on both of us as we see the same CI failures and poke at them independently. I dunno. I'll try it for a while and see how it goes. -Peff
