search

trim21 / transmission-rpc

https://transmission-rpc.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
MIT License
145 stars 34 forks source link

ci: Run CI on every branch #448

Closed dechamps closed 4 months ago

dechamps commented 4 months ago

Only running CI on master makes it harder to check the results without opening a PR.

trim21 commented 4 months ago

no, there are some branches like renovatebot/* should not trigger ci.

And I think this is a special case that this repo need PR to non-master branch.

dechamps commented 4 months ago

no, there are some branches like renovatebot/* should not trigger ci.

Why?

And I think this is a special case that this repo need PR to non-master branch.

That's not what my concern is though - it's not specific to that case. My concern is, if I push a branch to my fork in preparation to opening a PR, I don't get any CI results. I try to be a good citizen and only send you a PR once my branch passes CI, but your config is making it difficult to be a good citizen and then I have to waste your time opening PRs that don't even pass CI in the first place :(

Right now I'm working around that by patching in the config change in this PR in a separate branch, then build my change on top of that, then push that just so that I can run CI without bothering you with an incomplete PR. (Actually I realized just now that I can also work around that by opening a PR against myself… I guess that's a bit easier but still, ugh)

I don't know how you deal with that in your workflow - isn't it annoying when you push some branch and can't get any CI results without opening a PR first? It certainly is for me.

I'm not sure why this is controversial - CI is cheap, to me more CI is always better than less CI.

trim21 commented 4 months ago

Why?

Beacuase renovatebot will create a branch in this repo then submit a PR, so CI will run twice.

That's not what my concern is though - it's not specific to that case. My concern is, if I push a branch to my fork in preparation to opening a PR, I don't get any CI results. I try to be a good citizen and only send you a PR once my branch passes CI, but your config is making it difficult to be a good citizen and then I have to waste your time opening PRs that don't even pass CI in the first place :(

Right now I'm working around that by patching in the config change in this PR in a separate branch, then build my change on top of that, then push that just so that I can run CI without bothering you with an incomplete PR. (Actually I realized just now that I can also work around that by opening a PR against myself… I guess that's a bit easier but still, ugh)

I don't know how you deal with that in your workflow - isn't it annoying when you push some branch and can't get any CI results without opening a PR first? It certainly is for me.

I'm not sure why this is controversial - CI is cheap, to me more CI is always better than less CI.

I really don't mind someone submit a PR and ci broken at first place. Moreover, you can submit a PR with draft

If this realy annoys you, you can merge this PR to your master branch, which will trigger ci of all branch if your repo.