Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> writes:
> That is why I taught the Git for Windows CI job that tests the four
> upstream Git integration branches to *also* bisect test breakages and then
> upload comments to the identified commit on GitHub
Good. I do not think it is useful to try 'pu' as an aggregate and
expect it to always build and work [*1*], but your "bisect and
pinpoint" approach makes it useful to identify individual topic that
brings in a breakage. I wouldn't be surprised if original submitter
and I were the only two people who actually compiled the patches on
a topic in isolation while a topic is in 'pu', and chances are that
these two people didn't try their builds on Windows. A CI like this
one will help the coverage to stop premature topics from advancing
to 'pu' without getting any Windows exposure.
Thanks.
[Footnote]
*1* The reason why topics not in 'next' but in 'pu', especially the
ones merged near the tip of 'pu', exist in 'pu' are because they
are interesting enough and could be polished to become eligible
for 'next' but known to be premature for 'next' yet. They are
there primarily to give human contributors an easier way to
download them as a whole and help polish them. And I have to be
selective when I queue things on 'pu'; it is not like I have
infinite amount of time to pick up any cruft that is sent to the
list.
