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=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 E71891F4D7 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:30:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1344074AbiDNScm (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:32:42 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47616 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1344694AbiDNScj (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:32:39 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B5448E41 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101471307C7; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:30:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=g6QKjSLS4qt2 87U9IyjGCO/9HMgaFKEhIGcKIPRfMOA=; b=VPnJ3BXoFThbIBUanKg0B6nXSEFt 5t6IL0On0hjYzR7OfeauvXYFo2r9VHlueRNU6pT2xNSVPO4j3zIVZqSjYs3yXFNa Ljs5KU1q/+vUzrLVydcgbbKBeGTd6861HWFubWYvAyILDur/AcR85pDY8DpSJbmi +dCtDJov1aSl5/U= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071461307C5; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:30:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.185.214.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DCC51307C3; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:30:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau , SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , =?utf-8?B?xJBvw6BuIFRy4bqnbiBDw7RuZw==?= Danh , Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n?= , Johannes Schindelin , Victoria Dye , Matheus Tavares , Lars Schneider Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/6] CI: js/ci-github-workflow-markup rebased on "use $GITHUB_ENV" References: <220414.86tuavde26.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:30:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <220414.86tuavde26.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOG?= =?utf-8?B?dmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:47:30 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EB2BC24C-BC20-11EC-94A9-CB998F0A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >> With the other 29-patch series applied on the same base as before, >> test_failure_ does not have such "fi" inside. Misapplication of >> rebase or something? > > This re-submission was rebased on "master", so that "fi" in the context > is from the now-landed ab/test-tap-fix-for-immediate. > > I saw you'd fixed that conflict already, but figured rebasing before > submission (as usual) would be helpful anyway, sorry about the > confusion. > >> In any case, I've wiggled both series in and rebuilt 'seen'. >> Looking good as before. > > Thanks, the end-state of the resolution looks good, and matches what I > have locally. OK, I guessed that much. It may be OK for a topic to be rebased to an updated 'master' when it is not close to be merged to 'next', but I prefer to see a reroll to keep the same base, unless the new round starts depending on the new base in a way more than just textually (i.e. e.g. wants to use a new API function), as that makes it easier to read the comparison with the previous round because a reasonably looking range-diff may not necessarily mean that a patch that hasn't changed much from the previous round would fit well inside the updated context. This is especially true for a series on the large-ish side, as I cannot trust range-diff for an rebased series as much as I can for an update on the same base. This time, I tried to queue the new ones on updated 'master' and then compared it with the result of merging the ones that I wriggled to apply to the same base to the same updated 'master' to make sure the end result is the same while I was working on making them apply before I sent the message you are responding to, so I am reasonably happy with the result. It may not be a bad idea, as we are in pre-release freeze anyway, for me to discard the two topics and replace them with a fresh application of the same version on top of 'master', as we have already verified that the updates from the previous iteration look reasonable, to prepare for post-release (either merging to 'next' or taking another reroll). Thanks.