From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98AC1F453 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726989AbfBFSzW (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:55:22 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:34884 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1726960AbfBFSzW (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:55:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 10891 invoked by uid 109); 6 Feb 2019 18:55:22 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 18:55:22 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 4318 invoked by uid 111); 6 Feb 2019 18:55:30 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 13:55:30 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 06 Feb 2019 13:55:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:55:20 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Martin =?utf-8?B?w4VncmVu?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] doc-diff: don't `cd_to_toplevel` Message-ID: <20190206185520.GD10231@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190203230152.GA25608@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190204205037.32143-1-martin.agren@gmail.com> <20190204233444.GC2366@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 10:45:35AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > - Perhaps find the fork point, run tests to find known breakages > and exclude them? This would simply be not practical, as it > doubles the number of tests run, for individual topic branches > because there are an order of magnitude more of them than the > primary integration branches. I think this can be limited to the tests that failed, which makes things much faster. I.e., we run the tests at the tip of topic X and see that t1234 fails. We then go back to the fork point and we just need to run t1234 again. If it succeeds, then we blame X for the failure. If it fails, then we consider it a false positive. You do pay the price to do a full build at the fork point, but in my experience that is much quicker than the tests. -Peff