Hi Gábor,

On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 02:22:10PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> > writes:
> > 
> > > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > >
> > > Let's not decide in the generic ci/ script how many jobs to run in
> > > parallel; it is easy enough to hand that information down via the
> > > `MAKEFLAGS`.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > > ---
> > >  ci/run-build-and-tests.sh | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh b/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh
> > > index db342bb6a8..80d72d120f 100755
> > > --- a/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh
> > > +++ b/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh
> > > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> > >  
> > >  ln -s "$cache_dir/.prove" t/.prove
> > >  
> > > -make --jobs=2
> > > +make
> > >  make --quiet test
> > >  if test "$jobname" = "linux-gcc"
> > >  then
> > 
> > As there is no assignment to MAKEFLAGS in this patch, is it intended
> > for this step to change behaviour (possibly with the intention to
> > add "default 2 jobs at least under travis" back later in the
> > series)?  Not that it matters too much, but it is unnerving to see
> > that the proposed log message promising "it is easy enough" while
> > not actually doing so, without expressing an intention.
> 
> Furthermore, there are several other 'ci/run-<something>.sh' scripts
> that still run 'make -j N'.

Indeed. I removed those `--jobs=2` options from those.

Granted, I did not audit whether there were `make` calls that did not have
any `-j` option, but I think it would be safe to parallelize all of them
via `MAKEFLAGS`.

Ciao,
Dscho