> On 15. 6. 2022, at 11:25, Yedidyah Bar David <d...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I was annoyed for some time now by the fact that when I used some
> github-CI-generated RPMs, with a git hash in their names, I could
> never find this git hash anywhere - not in my local git repo, nor in
> github. Why is it so?
huh, I wondered about that same thing today....
Thank you for explaining why I couldn't find that hash anywhere
> Because, if I got it right, the default for
> 'actions/checkout@v2' is to merge the PR HEAD with the branch HEAD.
> See e.g. [1]:
>
> HEAD is now at 7bbb40c9a Merge
> 026bb9c672bf46786dd6d16f4cbe0ecfa84c531d into
> 35e217936b5571e9657946b47333a563373047bb
>
> Meaning: my patch was 026bb9c, master was 35e2179, and the generated
> RPMs will have 7bbb40c9a, not to be found anywhere else. If you check
> the main PR page [3], you can find there '026bb9c', but not
> '7bbb40c9a'.
>
> (Even 026bb9c might require some effort, e.g. "didib force-pushed the
> add-hook-log-console branch 2 times, most recently from c90e658 to
> 66ebc88 yesterday". I guess this is the result of github discouraging
> force-pushes, in direct opposite of gerrit, which had a notion of
> different patchsets for a single change. I already ranted about this
> in the past, but that's not the subject of the current message).
We should create ovirt-github-ra...@ovirt.org, I'd certainly contribute:-) It's
amazing how horrible _and_ popular github is.
>
> This is not just an annoyance, it's a real difference in semantics. In
> gerrit/jenkins days, IIRC most/all projects I worked on, ran CI
> testing/building on the pushed HEAD, and didn't touch it. Rebase, if
> at all, happened either explicitly, or at merge time.
>
> actions/checkout's default, to auto-merge, is probably meant to be
> more "careful" - to test what would happen if the code is merged. I
> agree this makes sense. But I personally think it's almost always ok
> to test on the pushed HEAD and not rebase/merge _implicitely_.
>
> What do you think?
>
> It should be easy to change, using [2]:
>
> - uses: actions/checkout@v2
> with:
> ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }}
>
> No need to reach a complete consensus - can be decided upon
> per-project/repo.
github is always quite horrible to maintain some consistency across
projects...yeah, I'd really like to have the same approach for every single
project, it simplifies the maintenace....we do have a lot of projects and many
are not very active and they easily fall behind. After all we have 160 projects
in oVirt org but only ~30 are active....or rather 30 are in use for oVirt
compose and ~10 are active.
+1 on using it everywhere
we have our own action for rpms and buildcontainer for unified build
environment (with a shameful exception of vdsm!)....it's probably overkill for
checkout to use oVirt's action
> But if you disagree, I'd like to understand why.
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> [1] https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/runs/6881311961?check_suite_focus=true
>
> [2]
> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/checkout?version=v2.4.2#checkout-pull-request-head-commit-instead-of-merge-commit
>
> [3] https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/pull/249
> --
> Didi
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@ovirt.org
> Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html
> oVirt Code of Conduct:
> https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
> List Archives:
> https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/7SEFKOASOATTMO2NK2SBWMOV4CV6LZOS/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@ovirt.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html
oVirt Code of Conduct:
https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
List Archives:
https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/73U2DK57PATX7R23UCEJBQASQ55X7EGC/
