On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:51:04AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 15:31:27 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:23:05AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 13:52:08 -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 23:42 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 01:37:02 -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>>> > >>>>> It looks like it can be done by "Running CI/CD for external repositories". > >>> > >>> Nah, it looks like this won't work either. After my patch on top of master, it's > >>> already warning about diverging repositories when I try to sync. > >>> > >>> Another solution I could find: > >>> - Change the patch I sent before to keep the file on another directory, even > >>> with a different name: this will not trigger the build for anyone. > >>> - Change my repository config to trigger the CI from that file. > >>> > >>> The file would only be a random YML file in the repo. > >>> Would that be ok? > >> > >> Hmm, yes, I think I can live with it. > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I removed my previous repository and then imported perfbook again using the > >>>>> above mentioned mode. According to the man page, it will run CI for the project > >>>>> whenever a new push to the referenced repository happens. > >>>>> > >>>>> So it's just a matter of waiting a new commit getting push'ed to see if it will > >>>>> be working. > >>>> > >>>> Hi Leonardo, > >>>> > >>>> I noticed a minor glitch in the generated PDFs. > >>>> They don't have Git commit info in the title page and footer area of > >>>> pages. > >>>> > >>>> I can't tell what went wrong, but expected autodate.tex should look like: > >>> > >>> I found it out: gitlab was doing a shallow clone, and the previous tag was not > >>> in the commits, so I modified the Gitlab config so it does a complete clone of > >>> the repository instead. > >> > >> Aha! The script has never tested under a shallow clone... > >> Let me see if I can improve its behavior. > >> > >>> The last output of the pipeline seems to have been correct, please check: > >>> https://gitlab.com/linux-kernel/perfbook/-/jobs/3705185694/artifacts/browse > >> > >> Apparently, the commit id does not make sense in Paul's repo. > >> But the random YML file approach should resolve it. > > > > Apologies, I left it untracked. There is now a Leonardo.2023.02.01a > > branch that references it. > > I mean the commit id 81974e57 presented in the artifacts is of the commit > Leonardo made on his own: > > https://gitlab.com/linux-kernel/perfbook/-/commit/81974e57bed4 You are right, that is not the Leonardo.2023.02.01a commit. Apologies for my confusion! Thanx, Paul
