If several jobs in the windows-test or vs-test matrices fail, the
upload-artifact action in each job tries to upload the test directories
of the failed tests as "failed-tests-windows.zip", which fails for all
jobs except the one which finishes first with the following error:
Error: Failed to CreateArtifact: Received non-retryable error:
Failed request: (409) Conflict: an artifact with this name
already exists on the workflow run
Make the artifacts name unique by using the 'matrix.nr' token, and
disambiguate the vs-test artifacts from the windows-test ones.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Integrate the reftable code into the refs framework as a backend.
* ps/reftable-backend:
refs/reftable: fix leak when copying reflog fails
ci: add jobs to test with the reftable backend
refs: introduce reftable backend
After we upgraded actions/setup-go to v5, the following warning message
was reported every time we ran the CI.
Restore cache failed: Dependencies file is not found ...
Disable cache to suppress warning messages as described in the solution
below.
https://github.com/actions/setup-go/issues/427
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com>
When we upgraded GitHub Actions "mshick/add-pr-comment" to v2, the
following warning message was reported every time we ran the CI.
Unexpected input(s) 'repo-token-user-login', valid inputs ...
Removed the obsolete parameter "repo-token-user-login" to suppress
warning messages.
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com>
* 'master' of github.com:git/git: (51 commits)
Hopefully the last batch of fixes before 2.44 final
Git 2.43.2
A few more fixes before -rc1
write-or-die: fix the polarity of GIT_FLUSH environment variable
A few more topics before -rc1
completion: add and use __git_compute_second_level_config_vars_for_section
completion: add and use __git_compute_first_level_config_vars_for_section
completion: complete 'submodule.*' config variables
completion: add space after config variable names also in Bash 3
receive-pack: use find_commit_header() in check_nonce()
ci(linux32): add a note about Actions that must not be updated
ci: bump remaining outdated Actions versions
unit-tests: do show relative file paths on non-Windows, too
receive-pack: use find_commit_header() in check_cert_push_options()
prune: mark rebase autostash and orig-head as reachable
sequencer: unset GIT_CHERRY_PICK_HELP for 'exec' commands
ref-filter.c: sort formatted dates by byte value
ssh signing: signal an error with a negative return value
bisect: document command line arguments for "bisect start"
bisect: document "terms" subcommand more fully
...
Update remaining GitHub Actions jobs to avoid warnings against
using deprecated version of Node.js.
* js/github-actions-update:
ci(linux32): add a note about Actions that must not be updated
ci: bump remaining outdated Actions versions
Squelch node.js 16 deprecation warnings from GitHub Actions CI
by updating actions/github-script and actions/checkout that use
node.js 20.
* jc/github-actions-update:
GitHub Actions: update to github-script@v7
GitHub Actions: update to checkout@v4
The Docker container used by the `linux32` job comes without Node.js,
and therefore the `actions/checkout` and `actions/upload-artifact`
Actions cannot be upgraded to the latest versions (because they use
Node.js).
One time too many, I accidentally tried to update them, where
`actions/checkout` at least fails immediately, but the
`actions/upload-artifact` step is only used when any test fails, and
therefore the CI run usually passes even though that Action was updated
to a version that is incompatible with the Docker container in which
this job runs.
So let's add a big fat warning, mainly for my own benefit, to avoid
running into the very same issue over and over again.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
After activating automatic Dependabot updates in the
git-for-windows/git repository, Dependabot noticed a couple
of yet-unaddressed updates. They avoid "Node.js 16 Actions"
deprecation messages by bumping the following Actions'
versions:
- actions/upload-artifact from 3 to 4
- actions/download-artifact from 3 to 4
- actions/cache from 3 to 4
Helped-by: Matthias Aßhauer <mha1993@live.de>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This avoids the "Node.js 16 Actions are deprecated" warnings.
Original-commits-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Add CI jobs for both GitHub Workflows and GitLab CI to run Git with the
new reftable backend.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Contributors using Gitgitgadget continue to send single-commit PRs with
their commit message text duplicated below the three-dash line,
increasing the signal-to-noise ratio for reviewers.
This is because Gitgitgadget copies the pull request description as an
in-patch commentary, for single-commit PRs, and _GitHub_ defaults to
prefilling the pull request description with the commit message, for
single-commit PRs (followed by the content of the pull request
template).
Add a note in the pull request template mentioning that for
single-commit PRs, the PR description should thus be kept empty, in the
hope that contributors read it and act on it.
This partly addresses:
https://github.com/gitgitgadget/gitgitgadget/issues/340
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This contains an evil merge to tell the fuzz-smoke-test job to
also use checkout@v4; the job has been added since the master
track diverged from the maintenance track.
* jc/maint-github-actions-update:
GitHub Actions: update to github-script@v7
GitHub Actions: update to checkout@v4
We seem to be getting "Node.js 16 actions are deprecated." warnings
for jobs that use github-script@v6. Update to github-script@v7,
which is said to use Node.js 20.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We seem to be getting "Node.js 16 actions are deprecated." warnings
for jobs that use checkout@v3. Except for the i686 containers job
that is kept at checkout@v1 [*], update to checkout@v4, which is
said to use Node.js 20.
[*] 6cf4d908 (ci(main): upgrade actions/checkout to v3, 2022-12-05)
refers to https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/2115 and
explains why container jobs are kept at checkout@v1. We may
want to check the current status of the issue and move it to the
same version as other jobs, but that is outside the scope of
this step.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To prevent bitrot, we would like to regularly exercise the fuzz tests in
order to make sure they still link & run properly. We already compile
the fuzz test objects as part of the default `make` target, but we do
not link the executables due to the fuzz tests needing specific
compilers and compiler features. This has lead to frequent build
breakages for the fuzz tests.
To remedy this, we can add a CI step to actually link the fuzz
executables, and run them (with finite input rather than the default
infinite random input mode) to verify that they execute properly.
Since the main use of the fuzz tests is via OSS-Fuzz [1], and OSS-Fuzz
only runs tests on Linux [2], we only set up a CI test for the fuzzers
on Linux.
[1] https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz
[2] https://google.github.io/oss-fuzz/further-reading/fuzzer-environment/
Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In April, GitHub announced that the `macos-13` pool is available:
https://github.blog/changelog/2023-04-24-github-actions-macos-13-is-now-available/.
It is only a matter of time until the `macos-12` pool is going away,
therefore we should switch now, without pressure of a looming deadline.
Since the `macos-13` runners no longer include Python2, we also drop
specifically testing with Python2 and switch uniformly to Python3, see
https://github.com/actions/runner-images/blob/HEAD/images/macos/macos-13-Readme.md
for details about the software available on the `macos-13` pool's
runners.
Also, on macOS 13, Homebrew seems to install a `gcc@9` package that no
longer comes with a regular `unistd.h` (there seems only to be a
`ssp/unistd.h`), and hence builds would fail with:
In file included from base85.c:1:
git-compat-util.h:223:10: fatal error: unistd.h: No such file or directory
223 | #include <unistd.h>
| ^~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.
The reason why we install GCC v9.x explicitly is historical, and back in
the days it was because it was the _newest_ version available via
Homebrew: 176441bfb5 (ci: build Git with GCC 9 in the 'osx-gcc' build
job, 2019-11-27).
To reinstate the spirit of that commit _and_ to fix that build failure,
let's switch to the now-newest GCC version: v13.x.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Tweak GitHub Actions CI so that pushing the same commit to multiple
branch tips at the same time will not waste building and testing
the same thing twice.
* jc/ci-skip-same-commit:
ci: avoid building from the same commit in parallel
When trying to obtain the MD5 of the Coverity Scan Tool (in order to
decide whether a cached version can be used or a new version has to be
downloaded), it is possible to get a 401 (Authorization required) due to
either an incorrect token, or even more likely due to an incorrect
Coverity project name.
Seeing an authorization failure that is caused by an incorrect project
name was somewhat surprising to me when developing the Coverity
workflow, as I found such a failure suggestive of an incorrect token
instead.
So let's provide a helpful error message about that specifically when
encountering authentication issues.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
For completeness' sake, let's add support for submitting macOS builds to
Coverity Scan.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
By adding the repository variable `ENABLE_COVERITY_SCAN_ON_OS` with a
value, say, `["windows-latest"]`, this GitHub workflow now runs on
Windows, allowing to analyze Windows-specific issues.
This allows, say, the Git for Windows fork to submit Windows builds to
Coverity Scan instead of Linux builds.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
By default, the builds are submitted to the `git` project at
https://scan.coverity.com/projects/git.
The Git for Windows project would like to use this workflow, too,
though, and needs the builds to be submitted to the `git-for-windows`
Coverity project.
To that end, allow configuring the Coverity project name via the
repository variable, you guessed it, `COVERITY_PROJECT`. The default if
that variable is not configured or has an empty value is still `git`.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It would add a 1GB+ download for every run, better cache it.
This is inspired by the GitHub Action `vapier/coverity-scan-action`,
however, it uses the finer-grained `restore`/`save` method to be able to
cache the Coverity Build Tool even if an unrelated step in the GitHub
workflow fails later on.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Coverity is a static analysis tool that detects and generates reports on
various security and code quality issues.
It is particularly useful when diagnosing memory safety issues which may
be used as part of exploiting a security vulnerability.
Coverity's website provides a service that accepts "builds" (which
contains the object files generated during a standard build as well as a
database generated by Coverity's scan tool).
Let's add a GitHub workflow to automate all of this. To avoid running it
without appropriate Coverity configuration (e.g. the token required to
use Coverity's services), the job only runs when the repository variable
"ENABLE_COVERITY_SCAN_FOR_BRANCHES" has been configured accordingly (see
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/learn-github-actions/variables for
details how to configure repository variables): It is expected to be a
valid JSON array of branch strings, e.g. `["main", "next"]`.
In addition, this workflow requires two repository secrets:
- COVERITY_SCAN_EMAIL: the email to send the report to, and
- COVERITY_SCAN_TOKEN: the Coverity token (look in the Project Settings
tab of your Coverity project).
Note: The initial version of this patch used
`vapier/coverity-scan-action` to benefit from that Action's caching of
the Coverity tool, which is rather large. Sadly, that Action only
supports Linux, and we want to have the option of building on Windows,
too. Besides, in the meantime Coverity requires `cov-configure` to be
runantime, and that Action was not adjusted accordingly, i.e. it seems
not to be maintained actively. Therefore it would seem prudent to
implement the steps manually instead of using that Action.
Initial-patch-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Now that we have the CI_BRANCHES mechanism, there is no need for anybody
to use the ci/config/allow-ref mechanism. In the long run, we can
hopefully remove it and the whole "config" job, as it consumes CPU and
adds to the end-to-end latency of the whole workflow. But we don't want
to do that immediately, as people need time to migrate until the
CI_BRANCHES change has made it into the workflow file of every branch.
So let's issue a warning, which will appear in the "annotations" section
below the workflow result in GitHub's web interface. And let's remove
the sample allow-refs script, as we don't want to encourage anybody to
use it.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When we added config to skip CI for certain branches in e76eec3554 (ci:
allow per-branch config for GitHub Actions, 2020-05-07), there wasn't
any way to avoid spinning up a VM just to check the config. From the
developer's perspective this isn't too bad, as the "skipped" branches
complete successfully after running the config job (the workflow result
is "success" instead of "skipped", but that is a minor lie).
But we are still wasting time and GitHub's CPU to spin up a VM just to
check the result of a short shell script. At the time there wasn't any
way to avoid this. But they've since introduced repo-level variables
that should let us do the same thing:
https://github.blog/2023-01-10-introducing-required-workflows-and-configuration-variables-to-github-actions/#configuration-variables
This is more efficient, and as a bonus is probably less confusing to
configure (the existing system requires sticking your config on a magic
ref).
See the included docs for how to configure it.
The code itself is pretty simple: it checks the variable and skips the
config job if appropriate (and everything else depends on the config job
already). There are two slight inaccuracies here:
- we don't insist on branches, so this likewise applies to tag names
or other refs. I think in practice this is OK, and keeping the code
(and docs) short is more important than trying to be more exact. We
are targeting developers of git.git and their limited workflows.
- the match is done as a substring (so if you want to run CI for
"foobar", then branch "foo" will accidentally match). Again, this
should be OK in practice, as anybody who uses this is likely to only
specify a handful of well-known names. If we want to be more exact,
we can have the code check for adjoining spaces. Or even move to a
more general CI_CONFIG variable formatted as JSON. I went with this
scheme for the sake of simplicity.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
At times, we may need to push the same commit to multiple branches
in the same push. Rewinding 'next' to rebuild on top of 'master'
soon after a release is such an occasion. Making sure 'main' stays
in sync with 'master' to help those who expect that primary branch
of the project is named either of these is another.
We already use the branch name as a "concurrency group" key, but
that does not address the situation illustrated above.
Let's introduce another `concurrency` attribute, using the commit
hash as the concurrency group key, on the workflow run level, to
address this. This will hold any workflow run in the queued state
when there is already a workflow run targeting the same commit,
until that latter run completed. The `skip-if-redundant` check of
the second run will then have a chance to see whether the first
run succeeded.
The only caveat with this strategy is that only one workflow run
will be kept in the queued state by the `concurrency` feature: if
another run targeting the same commit is triggered, the
previously-queued run will be canceled. Considering the benefit,
this seems the smaller price to pay than to overload Git's build
agent pool with undesired workflow runs.
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since the linux-asan-ubsan job runs using clang under Linux, there is
not much point in running a separate clang job. Any errors that a normal
clang compile-and-test cycle would find are likely to be a subset of
what the sanitizer job will find. Since this job takes ~14 minutes to
run in CI, this shaves off some of our CPU load (though it does not
affect end-to-end runtime, since it's typically run in parallel and is
not the longest job).
Technically this provides us with slightly less signal for a given run,
since you won't immediately know if a failure in the sanitizer job is
from using clang or from the sanitizers themselves. But it's generally
obvious from the logs, and anyway your next step would be to fix the
probvlem and re-run CI, since we expect all of these jobs to pass
normally.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When we started running sanitizers in CI via 1c0962c0c4 (ci: add address
and undefined sanitizer tasks, 2022-10-20), we ran them as two separate
CI jobs, since as that commit notes, the combination "seems to take
forever".
And indeed, it does with gcc. However, since the previous commit
switched to using clang, the situation is different, and we can save
some CPU by using a single job for both. Comparing before/after CI runs,
this saved about 14 minutes (the single combined job took 54m, versus
44m plus 24m for ASan and UBSan jobs, respectively). That's wall-clock
and not CPU, but since our jobs are mostly CPU-bound, the two should be
closely proportional.
This does increase the end-to-end time of a CI run, though, since before
this patch the two jobs could run in parallel, and the sanitizer job is
our longest single job. It also means that we won't get a separate
result for "this passed with UBSan but not with ASan" or vice versa).
But as 1c0962c0c4 noted, that is not a very useful signal in practice.
Below are some more detailed timings of gcc vs clang that I measured by
running the test suite on my local workstation. Each measurement counts
only the time to run the test suite with each compiler (not the compile
time itself). We'll focus on the wall-clock times for simplicity, though
the CPU times follow roughly similar trends.
Here's a run with CC=gcc as a baseline:
real 1m12.931s
user 9m30.566s
sys 8m9.538s
Running with SANITIZE=address increases the time by a factor of ~4.7x:
real 5m40.352s
user 49m37.044s
sys 36m42.950s
Running with SANITIZE=undefined increases the time by a factor of ~1.7x:
real 2m5.956s
user 12m42.847s
sys 19m27.067s
So let's call that 6.4 time units to run them separately (where a unit
is the time it takes to run the test suite with no sanitizers). As a
simplistic model, we might imagine that running them together would take
5.4 units (we save 1 unit because we are no longer running the test
suite twice, but just paying the sanitizer overhead on top of a single
run).
But that's not what happens. Running with SANITIZE=address,undefined
results in a factor of 9.3x:
real 11m9.817s
user 77m31.284s
sys 96m40.454s
So not only did we not get faster when doing them together, we actually
spent 1.5x as much CPU as doing them separately! And while those
wall-clock numbers might not look too terrible, keep in mind that this
is on an unloaded 8-core machine. In the CI environment, wall-clock
times will be much closer to CPU times. So not only are we wasting CPU,
but we risk hitting timeouts.
Now let's try the same thing with clang. Here's our no-sanitizer
baseline run, which is almost identical to the gcc one (which is quite
convenient, because we can keep using the same "time units" to get an
apples-to-apples comparison):
real 1m11.844s
user 9m28.313s
sys 8m8.240s
And now again with SANITIZE=address, we get a 5x factor (so slightly
worse than gcc's 4.7x, though I wouldn't read too much into it; there is
a fair bit of run-to-run noise):
real 6m7.662s
user 49m24.330s
sys 44m13.846s
And with SANITIZE=undefined, we are at 1.5x, slightly outperforming gcc
(though again, that's probably mostly noise):
real 1m50.028s
user 11m0.973s
sys 16m42.731s
So running them separately, our total cost is 6.5x. But if we combine
them in a single run (SANITIZE=address,undefined), we get:
real 6m51.804s
user 52m32.049s
sys 51m46.711s
which is a factor of 5.7x. That's along the lines we'd hoped for!
Running them together saves us almost a whole time unit. And that's not
counting any time spent outside the test suite itself (starting the job,
setting up the environment, compiling) that we're no longer duplicating
by having two jobs.
So clang behaves like we'd hope: the overhead to run the sanitizers is
additive as you add more sanitizers. Whereas gcc's numbers seem very
close to multiplicative, almost as if the sanitizers were enforcing
their overheads on each other (though that is purely a guess on what is
going on; ultimately what matters to us is the amount of time it takes).
And that roughly matches the CI improvement I saw. A "time unit" there
is more like 12 minutes, and the observed time savings was 14 minutes
(with the extra presumably coming from avoiding duplicated setup, etc).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Both gcc and clang support the "address" and "undefined" sanitizers.
However, they may produce different results. We've seen at least two
real world cases where gcc missed a UBSan problem but clang found it:
1. Clang's UBSan (using clang 14.0.6) found a string index that was
subtracted to "-1", causing an out-of-bounds read (curiously this
didn't trigger ASan, but that may be because the string was in the
argv memory, not stack or heap). Using gcc (version 12.2.0) didn't
find the same problem.
Original thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20230519005447.GA2955320@coredump.intra.peff.net/
2. Clang's UBSan (using clang 4.0.1) complained about pointer
arithmetic with NULL, but gcc at the time did not. This was in
2017, and modern gcc does seem to find the issue, though.
Original thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/32a8b949-638a-1784-7fba-948ae32206fc@web.de/
Since we don't otherwise have a particular preference for one compiler
over the other for this test, let's switch to the one that we think may
be more thorough.
Note that it's entirely possible that the two are simply _different_,
and we are trading off problems that gcc would find that clang wouldn't.
However, my subjective and anecdotal experience has been that clang's
sanitizer support is a bit more mature (e.g., I recall other oddities
around leak-checking where clang performed more sensibly).
Obviously running both and cross-checking the results would give us the
best coverage, but that's very expensive to run (and these are already
some of our most expensive CI jobs). So let's use clang as our best
guess, and we can re-evaluate if we get more data points.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
CI updates. We probably want a clean-up to move the long shell
script embedded in yaml file into a separate file, but that can
come later.
* cw/ci-whitespace:
ci (check-whitespace): move to actions/checkout@v3
ci (check-whitespace): add links to job output
ci (check-whitespace): suggest fixes for errors
As well as removing the explicit shell setting d8b21a0fe2 (CI: don't
explicitly pick "bash" shell outside of Windows, fix regression,
2022-12-07) also reverted the name of the print test failures step
introduced by 5aeb145780 (ci(github): bring back the 'print test
failures' step, 2022-06-08). This is unfortunate as 5aeb145780 added a
message to direct contributors to the "print test failures" step when a
test fails and that step is no-longer known by that name on the
non-windows ci jobs.
In principle we could update the message to print the correct name for
the step but then we'd have to deal with having two different names for
the same step on different jobs. It is simpler for the implementation
and contributors to use the same name for this step on all jobs.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Get rid of deprecation warnings in the CI runs. Also gets the latest
security patches.
Signed-off-by: Chris. Webster <chris@webstech.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A message in the step log will refer to the Summary output.
The job summary output is using markdown to improve readability. The
git commands and commits with errors are now in ordered lists.
Commits and files in error are links to the user's repository.
Signed-off-by: Chris. Webster <chris@webstech.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Make the errors more visible by adding them to the job summary and
display the git commands that will usually fix the problem.
Signed-off-by: Chris. Webster <chris@webstech.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It has been a frequent matter of contention that the win+VS jobs not
only take a long time to run, but are also more easily broken than the
other jobs (because they do not use the same `Makefile`-based builds as
all other jobs), and to make matters worse, these breakages are also
much harder to diagnose and fix than other jobs', especially for
contributors who are happy to stay away from Windows.
The purpose of these win+VS jobs is to maintain the CMake-based build
of Git, with the target audience being Visual Studio users on Windows
who are typically quite unfamiliar with `make` and POSIX shell
scripting, but the benefit of whose expertise we want for the Git
project nevertheless.
The CMake support was introduced for that specific purpose, and already
early on concerns were raised that it would put an undue burden on
contributors to ensure that these jobs pass in CI, when they do not have
access to Windows machines (nor want to have that).
This developer's initial hope was that it would be enough to fix win+VS
failures and provide the changes to be squashed into contributors'
patches, and that it would be worth the benefit of attracting
Windows-based developers' contributions.
Neither of these hopes have panned out.
To lower the frustration, and incidentally benefit from using way less
build minutes, let's just not run the win+VS jobs by default, which
appears to be the consensus of the mail thread leading up to
https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqk0311blt.fsf@gitster.g/
Since the Git for Windows project still needs to at least try to attract
more of said Windows-based developers, let's keep the jobs, but disable
them everywhere except in Git for Windows' fork. This will help because
Git for Windows' branch thicket is "continuously rebased" via automation
to the `shears/maint`, `shears/main`, `shears/next` and `shears/seen`
branches at https://github.com/git-for-windows/git. That way, the Git
for Windows project will still be notified early on about potential
breakages, but the Git project won't be burdened with fixing them
anymore, which seems to be the best compromise we can get on this issue.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Update GitHub CI to use actions/checkout@v3; use of the older
checkout@v2 gets annoying deprecation notices.
* od/ci-use-checkout-v3-when-applicable:
ci(main): upgrade actions/checkout to v3
The deprecated versions of these Actions still use node.js 12 whereas
workflows will need to use node.js 16 to avoid problems going forward.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When the "js/ci-github-workflow-markup" topic was originally merged in
[1] it included a change to get rid of the "ci/print-test-failures.sh"
step[2]. This was then brought back in [3] as part of a fix-up patches
on top[4].
The problem was that [3] was not a revert of the relevant parts of
[2], but rather copy/pasted the "ci/print-test-failures.sh" step that
was present for the Windows job to all "ci/print-test-failures.sh"
steps. The Windows steps specified "shell: bash", but the non-Windows
ones did not.
This broke the "ci/print/test-failures.sh" step for the "linux-musl"
job, where we don't have a "bash" shell, just a "/bin/sh" (a
"dash"). This breakage was reported at the time[5], but hadn't been
fixed.
It would be sufficient to change this only for "linux-musl", but let's
change this for both "regular" and "dockerized" to omit the "shell"
line entirely, as we did before [2].
Let's also change undo the "name" change that [3] made while
copy/pasting the "print test failures" step for the Windows job. These
steps are now the same as they were before [2], except that the "if"
includes the "env.FAILED_TEST_ARTIFACTS" test.
1. fc5a070f59 (Merge branch 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup', 2022-06-07)
2. 08dccc8fc1 (ci: make it easier to find failed tests' logs in the
GitHub workflow, 2022-05-21)
3. 5aeb145780 (ci(github): bring back the 'print test failures' step,
2022-06-08)
4. d0d96b8280 (Merge branch 'js/ci-github-workflow-markup', 2022-06-17)
5. https://lore.kernel.org/git/220725.86sfmpneqp.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Per [1] and the warnings our CI is emitting GitHub is phasing in
"macos-12" as their "macos-latest".
As with [2], let's pin our image to a specific version so that we're
not having it swept from under us, and our upgrade cycle can be more
predictable than whenever GitHub changes their images.
1. https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/6384
2. 0178420b9c (github-actions: run gcc-8 on ubuntu-20.04 image,
2022-11-25)
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
