Merged #3568 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3568#event-10616848196
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Go for it, it's approved after all.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3568#issuecomment-1752163855
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
If nobody stops me, I would like to merge this and the infrastructure PR to fix
the CI (and do this for G-P as well afterwards).
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3568#issuecomment-1752015990
You are receiving this because you are subscribe
Maybe you could open a new issue to discuss how we can rework the CI
infrastructure, if you like.
IMO this is out of scope of this PR.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3568#issuecomment-1749672450
You are receiving this because you are sub
> CI still checks out the PR branch and runs the scripts within, doesn't it?
Ahh, yes, in fact thats what Github were warning about, by default the action
can do anything, so what CI can do should be restricted (by the Geany security
expert team ;-) and then we are back to the original position
CI still checks out the PR branch and runs the scripts within, doesn't it?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3568#issuecomment-1746328972
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
> might be unable to propose certain changes without breaking CI
Even if the CI was all in Geany repository I don't think it will run the new CI
just because its in the PR. This was one of githubs recent security fixes IIRC
so actions can't push the modified code from the PR to release.
--
Re
> How should we fix it in Geany?
I don't have an answer (hence I approved this PR) but my perspective is that
Geany should the CI requirements, otherwise regular contributors might be
unable to propose certain changes without breaking CI (because they cannot fix
the CI in the same context).
Im
Agree with @eht16, the Geany repository does not define the toolset to use, and
it should not, otherwise it would restrict where it can be built to places
where our "blessed" toolset is available.
I'm not surprised that a generic cross compiler/stdlib does not support fancy
features like future
How should we fix it in Geany?
An external library which we include in our build (Scintilla) uses
features a special compiler toolchain does not support.
It's not a problem with our code that we could fix.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pul
@kugel- approved this pull request.
Meta-criticism: I dislike that that we (apparently) cannot fix this in Geany
alone but need a change on geany/infrastructure. Regular contributors are not
really able to propose such changes.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://gi
@eht16 pushed 2 commits.
354c7ba4e66803f16d9e0452b7829d47cb742587 CI: Copy used C++ runtime library
into the GTK bundle
b18c76edc9eb10a5c0097d4231c387885e2f266f CI: Log compiler and library versions
in build output
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3568/files/30372ece
@eht16 pushed 1 commit.
30372ece08c0d4986b36afcb1652b2cc3f26689f CI: Log compiler and library versions
in build output
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3568/files/23a07d7d3c7c65c630dc2700a62584376a25a9bb..30372ece08c0d4986b36afcb1652b2cc3f26689f
You are receiving this
13 matches
Mail list logo
