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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE31B1F4B4 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 21:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728769AbgJHVLm (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 17:11:42 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:52794 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726766AbgJHVLm (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 17:11:42 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A11DF87B3; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 17:11:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=3fAtq8AOhmApE5PVYz/2W0pioUI=; b=oF4jri +MYTTlBfULUkpShovfEuELE3dUVMjLOsjM7iRUYRpylHRvKRZ97qMyb6jdt6qGPY /nxNQQ876odA9CnbMsi+IUVaDYUDNqgBqLC3p41oc5yH8ijrpWFRx+mWhQPsVstD RMnduvl8fA6ON4eeRS/QxJWWPrD9QQQuk6r3s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=q6rAOdjxtUsfCKNSNylQ+sD8ArY/911R eAico2thSFut0GaCnLRX8YLCpQ0s39JHXoF7dJCQlZzkccre2bAF5CUBIAYIaHdI +Ju/b9YCFgjg6eWUHicEkS5RsdBMsPGhvRoF73HG5a/N02ModneJGQRrek9KjK8M ox0n/W4MvK0= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527C9F87B2; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 17:11:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99EC1F87B0; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 17:11:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Do not skip tagged revisions in the GitHub workflow runs References: Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 14:11:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget's message of "Thu, 08 Oct 2020 15:29:33 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DA4C358A-09AA-11EB-9038-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" writes: > * The intention of the tag skipping was replicated by introducing another > check in ci-config: is there a successful workflow run for the same > commit (or at least for the same tree)? If yes, skip, referring to that > successful run. Nice. Our tests and builds do not do anything differently depending on the refname we are on or the exact commit object name for that matter (other than using it in "git version" output), so "has this tree tested?" is good optimization strategy for this particular project.