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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD091F910 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 19:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230399AbiKUTA4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:00:56 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33976 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229604AbiKUTAy (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:00:54 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f172.google.com (mail-pf1-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40EB85CD22 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:00:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-f172.google.com with SMTP id k15so12190679pfg.2 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:00:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DSdaayKvYHTIXTPCPlZiJStWf1VN1DqVlNcbNRYcjRg=; b=5E0v2uDdLPxbLKw3z/rX0OqZJPIUjqz+DbSxyXkq3cKsyQAZoqom8eEwxuPqI87ifr Z/u87yBrBx5+6ob4Xgz2vSlmFz13QN5e9wDs21WDHoNnLzMAUUShINro+Ur9aEyn6p5f kG+04bVW4tcOo+KfvFoe7/NiYNpVRe5+CEUHgN2D8E/KcUpKAcbVFuq4VU1Sl4ZEtdDD jjXbtzams5HpCy8fQvYXe5odLk2nTbyohXEAjYlJ9WERRBeD5eJMURE+nb753UlBxUKY aUkoO8AcHMsXQxgcTHDdZ34wQHANY59srFgKqypyq+nLZJdbT1R2r8YIeDEvI8afG4WY cjqA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkZg5tPiSMkW8A061Ch9G0uHEr7m/fRxI8WfXnGJcnnc2sDMT88 xewVOcCu504kZQC8lLvk9gnMOE9pd8a429IyYxA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7pK7/wq0qf9s4Ec0TE7pv+5hmN+6Wcmcr4p11RtYs2Osgqac+889o7c/zI8cVkv0b0O6X2ynK+zvjeXxbSuvg= X-Received: by 2002:a63:f048:0:b0:477:5e23:f9d1 with SMTP id s8-20020a63f048000000b004775e23f9d1mr27735pgj.268.1669057253614; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:00:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <62fc652eb47a4df83d88a197e376f28dbbab3b52.1661992197.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <20220906223537.M956576@dcvr> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Sunshine Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:00:41 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] chainlint.pl: validate test scripts in parallel To: Jeff King Cc: Eric Wong , Eric Sunshine via GitGitGadget , Git List , Elijah Newren , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Fabian Stelzer , Johannes Schindelin Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 1:52 PM Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 01:47:42PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > I think Ævar's use-case for `make` parallelization was to speed up > > git-bisect runs. But thinking about it now, the likelihood of "lint" > > problems cropping up during a git-bisect run is effectively nil, in > > which case setting GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT=1 should be a perfectly > > appropriate way to take linting out of the equation when bisecting. > > Yes. It's also dumb to run a straight "make test" while bisecting in the > first place, because you are going to run a zillion tests that aren't > relevant to your bisection. Bisecting on "cd t && ./test-that-fails" is > faster, at which point you're only running the one lint process (and if > it really bothers you, you can disable chain lint as you suggest). I think I misspoke. Dredging up old memories, I think Ævar's use-case is that he now runs: git rebase -i --exec 'make test' ... in order to ensure that the entire test suite passes for _every_ patch in a series. (This is due to him having missed a runtime breakage by only running "make test" after the final patch in a series was applied, when the breakage was only temporary -- added by one patch, but resolved by some other later patch.) Even so, GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT=0 should be appropriate here too.