From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68791F404 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 20:00:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754538AbeAGUA1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2018 15:00:27 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:36109 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754356AbeAGUA0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2018 15:00:26 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id b76so10847280wmg.1 for ; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 12:00:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=wVv9eLJyc3m5kV+3YLUDACPtOAhX64QY6MqAUIX/Oio=; b=qkWLBbCIMG6wY8zOd0cwUr+1skCS2Dtionv0vMEIh4Cp/KaMB3vxb5DVqeVASlOU1p yZ0KBNYUOTUgU5ncvpyVwkwQBKJCtAu3gFELcsbfefdvu7T1c8vJ7b54CoX93l6BFpwx /o/IQl021xM38aWHdv1AqKhqd+g6cZS9bB4hFy+vo40/HAhL5qu/57YrtQm/L0o86qGB l7iq6NxWuCqUCcdIbzMDZwtHb8/LxC8HoJiYKwLrSDJVHsbNHCZaPbrT630Q32S9dXAH Ph+si1AzQLOtNU1urNh8Z9DOErtkH0qHMsnwyETZDf/Lv7SjRrP8NfhOqw+u6S+WD7ov oo6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=wVv9eLJyc3m5kV+3YLUDACPtOAhX64QY6MqAUIX/Oio=; b=kjesLjflD7G3fjZ8/+UFWyUflYye/g5urctrSyX3LJ2nAXTnF8bxhN+fqmLRU4S4om EMqa5BvV45j9Cg6xYgSB4YpWzathVDmNRM2p5XIOEuhpJ/527vv6JSnvkaBoiYLXdt0x BmaAnnOLs87Myuc2d9Qzb4CMjieqTyYNkloRxV8appPFtHXAqafpm0xgtFzNpBS2RN2m PG1Weql5YUEmSuKVzQMxfK7YgLiblpmM/l1PGSgYr/3dfWkpORzgwTI5cfCuRrB9Wppt t1rZ7pDMjWiQty9zyobUJ/1JVzaMr26djMk4EmnbvwoTDpi4pW0me+Vy98K3VNCr3PSa Y4Pg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIg6j1ICmAFCXOqNrcboE1Y8xz8PsbMzBtLxPoJERgcJKUtv1sQ xFq1D5s3WOCoSnLwJxLOSTolz+wr X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovpIpnXvf1KrbAMwvNCrDJNPRGPIurHFV25KJPs77htgJfyF6ZwET7EoxV4cxeuXnZtFAJ94Q== X-Received: by 10.28.95.135 with SMTP id t129mr8082212wmb.100.1515355225322; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 12:00:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (cpc73832-dals21-2-0-cust969.20-2.cable.virginm.net. [81.110.231.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j125sm10992915wmd.24.2018.01.07.12.00.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 07 Jan 2018 12:00:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 20:02:34 +0000 From: Thomas Gummerer To: Lars Schneider Cc: Git List , Brandon Williams , Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy , SZEDER =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] travis: run tests with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX Message-ID: <20180107200234.GB24806@hank> References: <20171210212202.28231-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20171217225122.28941-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20171217225122.28941-4-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20180104201312.GD2641@hank> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180104201312.GD2641@hank> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 01/04, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > On 12/18, Lars Schneider wrote: > > [snip] > > For now I think that looks good. Maybe we could define additional test > > configurations with an environment variable. That could be an array variable > > defined in the lib-travis.ci "case" statement: > > https://github.com/git/git/blob/1229713f78cd2883798e95f33c19c81b523413fd/ci/lib-travisci.sh#L42-L65 > > That sounds like a good idea. I'll try to see if I can come up with > something. On second thought I'd prefer to just leave it as is for now, and leave defining additional test configurations for a future iteration. Having it configurable makes it a bit uglier, and I'm not even sure how many configurations we can just test at runtime vs. having to compile with the flag set. So I'd like to punt on that for now, and introduce more configurability once we actually need it :) > > - Lars