Busy programmers are unlikely to restart test runs with surgical precision; I am sure the stats bear out that "PLS REBUILD ALL" almost has the exclusive. So let's drop "PLS" and "ALL" and let us say "REBUILD".
In addition, it should go without saying that "ALL" (or just "REBUILD") actually means to only rebuild failed commits. If jenkins has already recorded that some particular commit is a success, then who are we to say otherwise - if we do have issues with false positives on that point, that's a much bigger problem, and one not properly addressed by shouting bits of pidgin english over the intertubes.
In the best case (this is somewhat more ambitious) jenkins would recognize when I've just rebased 25 already-succeeded commits in order to fix a comment in #4, and would find a way to run something fewer than 25 new test runs at 30-60 minutes a pop, saving as much as one fraction of a tree in energy costs.
Busy programmers are unlikely to restart test runs with surgical precision; I am sure the stats bear out that "PLS REBUILD ALL" almost has the exclusive. So let's drop "PLS" and "ALL" and let us say "REBUILD".
In addition, it should go without saying that "ALL" (or just "REBUILD") actually means to only rebuild failed commits. If jenkins has already recorded that some particular commit is a success, then who are we to say otherwise - if we do have issues with false positives on that point, that's a much bigger problem, and one not properly addressed by shouting bits of pidgin english over the intertubes.
In the best case (this is somewhat more ambitious) jenkins would recognize when I've just rebased 25 already-succeeded commits in order to fix a comment in #4, and would find a way to run something fewer than 25 new test runs at 30-60 minutes a pop, saving as much as one fraction of a tree in energy costs.