From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>
Cc: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>,
Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci: avoid unnecessary builds
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2022 23:56:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <221108.8635autlha.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <114d4a72-1a75-71f3-8af6-6e82cd4fd54b@github.com>
On Mon, Nov 07 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 11/7/22 4:03 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 07 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/7/22 2:53 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
>>>> I wonder how we should treat Ævar's concerns in this thread. I suspect
>>>> that the vast majority of workflows wouldn't be affected, but I don't
>>>> want to completely break Ævar's workflow, either ;-).
>>>>
>>>> Some kind of configuration mechanism like I proposed might be nice.
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Taking a look at that sub-thread, I have two thoughts:
>>>
>>> 1. I don't think supporting a "multiple pushes of WIP work"
>>> scenario is a good use of "free" resources. If you want to
>>> test multiple versions of something, then use multiple
>>> branches (and I think Johannes's patch allows concurrent
>>> builds for distinct branch names).
>>
>> The setting Taylor proposed in
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/Y2R3vJf1A2KOZwA7@nand.local/ is off by
>> default, i.e. it would behave the same way as what Johannes is
>> proposing, just give you (well, me) an opt-out from the default, without
>> patching main.yml on every branch.
>>
>> So it seems like a win-win, why force others to change their workflow?
>> Sure, I could push multiple branches, but you could also manually cancel
>> your outstanding jobs before re-pushing...
>>
>> I agree that cancelling the outstanding job is a better default, and if
>> we had to pick one or the other I'd say "sure", but if we can have
>> both...
>
>>> Either of these points may have an incorrect assumption, so
>>> I'm prepared to be wrong.
>>
>> I *think* you're wrong about #2, but I'm not sure either.
>
> At the very least, the configurable option requires fetching the
> repo and checking out at least one file. I don't know how much it
> actually saves one way or another.
It's already fetching the ci-config repo, so we're talking about the
marginal cost of running the bit of shellscript to check if
config-repo/ci/config/skip-concurrent is executable, and if not keeping
the default config.
>> I don't think you can be wrong about #1, "others should change their
>> workflow to fit a new worldview" is more of a value-judgment :)
>
> True, but I think that the workflow you are trying to keep valid
> is also indistinguishable to the typical flow of force-pushing
> during incremental rewrites, so preserving your workflow will
> continue to add costs to that behavior.
I don't think it will, per the above. I mean, pedantically yes: But the
cost of that "test -x and variable setting" is so trivial that it's not
worth worrying about.
> My value judgement is that experts can adapt their workflows as
> situations change for the better of the group.
Sure, I agree with that in zero-sum scenarios, or where it's a hassle to
provide two things, and we need to pick one etc. I just don't see that
being the case here.
> If the cost of doing the config option version is minimal over
> the global concurrency issue, then I say we should go that route.
> I just expect it to take up more resources than the strategy
> proposed in the initial patch.
Based on what? That you read it as us cloning the ci-config repo just
for this new proposed config, and missed that we're doing it already, or
...?
> I wonder how we could determine this. Should we run a few CI
> jobs with some force-pushes in either approach (config turned
> off) so we know that cost?
The incremental cost of that "test -x", or...? I'm not sure what you
mean here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-07 23:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-03 13:34 [PATCH] ci: avoid unnecessary builds Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2022-11-04 1:46 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-11-04 2:23 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-04 3:20 ` Jeff King
2022-11-08 9:16 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-11-09 14:00 ` Jeff King
2022-11-10 2:40 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-04 2:09 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-07 19:45 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-11-07 19:53 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-07 20:08 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-11-07 21:03 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-11-07 21:59 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-11-07 22:44 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-08 8:18 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-11-08 18:30 ` Taylor Blau
2022-11-07 22:56 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2022-11-08 0:02 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-11-08 0:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-11-08 9:51 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=221108.8635autlha.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com \
--to=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=derrickstolee@github.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).