Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] CI: limit GitHub Actions to designated branches

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 07:36:34PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 03:58:24PM -0600, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > Huh; I'm not sure that I'm sold on the idea of a 'for-ci' namespace
> > here. In addition to running 'make test' on patches locally before I
> > send them, I find it tremendously convenient for GitHub to run them for
> > me when I push 'tb/' branches up to 'ttaylorr/git'.
> >
> > So, while the above is more-or-less what I'd expect the monitored list
> > of branches to look like (at least, ignoring the missing 'for-ci/**'
> > bits), I wish that I could also build every branch that I push up to my
> > fork.
> >
> > Of course, I don't want to maintain a one-patch difference between
> > ttaylorr/git@master and git/git@master, so I wonder if we could get a
> > little more creative with these rules and actually run Actions on
> > *every* branch, but introduce a new first step which stops the rest of
> > the actions run (so that in practice we're not running CI on
> > non-integration branches in Junio's tree).
>
> I don't understand what that would accomplish. If we ran the actions on
> every branch but stopped the run, then you wouldn't get the CI results
> you want. What am I missing?

That on forks of git/git we *would't* stop the run for non-integration
branches, i.e., that we'd have something like:

  * Actions is running on all branches, of all forks, all the time.

  * If a branch is pushed to git/git, and it's not an integration
    branch, the run is aborted early.

  * If a branch is pushed to a fork of git/git, it's allowed to run no
    matter what.

Maybe it's an over-engineered solution to a problem that we don't
have, though. Junio seems happy to simply disable Actions on git/git.
OTOH, I think it would be OK to skip the second bullet point, and
have Junio disable Actions notifications.

/shrug

> -Peff

Thanks,
Taylor