On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 23:22, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:50:27 AM UTC+9 tobia...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> I've now set some of the github checks as "required", so they get a small tag
> in the checks list. That should take care of (2).
>
> I am not sure if that helps or
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:50:27 AM UTC+9 tobia...@gmx.de wrote:
I've now set some of the github checks as "required", so they get a small
tag in the checks list. That should take care of (2).
I am not sure if that helps or makes things worse, as that is one more
thing to look and
I've now set some of the github checks as "required", so they get a small
tag in the checks list. That should take care of (2).
(Hopefully, it doesn't break Volker's workflow - it shouldn't, because he
has the rights to overwrite any branch protection rules.)
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at
now it's a step related to codecov that takes more than 1h50 minutes, see
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/6523545241/job/17714302017?pr=36463
Le mardi 10 octobre 2023 à 16:29:01 UTC+2, Kwankyu Lee a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I am sorry to say this, but our github checks seem to be a mess.
Someone who had the same problems made a Chrome extension:
https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/48154#discussioncomment-6721631
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:29:01 PM UTC+9 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am sorry to say this, but our github checks seem to be a mess.
>
> (1) There
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:29:01 AM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
I am sorry to say this, but our github checks seem to be a mess.
Yes, there are numerous issues.
(1) There are two many checks. I have to scroll.
(2) Some checks look similar. I have to think to see which one is
significant.
