On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:54:52 GMT, Robin Westberg <rwestb...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Ah wait, I now see "Linux additional" is the column name in testing table, >> because it is the name of the job! Eh... It was nicer to have columns per >> arch. Does it make sense to split the "Linux x64 (other)" and "Linux >> Foreign" then? It might also simplify the coding as we would not have to >> check for `matrix.debian_arch`. >> >> EDIT: Or maybe it is fine to have "Linux additional", as it stand now. >> Really undecided here :) > > I personally think I prefer to just use a single column for the additional > cross compile builds, because the table becomes very big otherwise (and the > rows get split up). You still see the full name of the build in case anything > fails, so not sure it adds that much value to get an additional box for each > cross-compiled architecture, I guess in 99% of cases they will just pass and > then you don't really care exactly which platforms you didn't break.. But I'm > no UX expert. :) Yeah, bike-shedding aside, "Linux additional" is probably fine. So if we accept #1379, then it would also add "Windows additional"? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1350
