[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits from DPL



Hi,
Le dimanche 05 janvier 2025 à 06:37 +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić a écrit :
> Hi!
> 
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2025 at 01:23:28AM +0100, Jean-Pierre Giraud wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > The Bits from DPL for December has just been published on Bits for
> > Debian. 
> > 
> > https://salsa.debian.org/publicity-team/bits/-/blob/master/content/2025/dpl-bits/bits-from-the-dpl-january.md?ref_type=heads&plain=1
> > 
> > We would greatly appreciate your feedback to correct any formatting
> > issues.
> 
> I found
> https://salsa.debian.org/publicity-team/bits/-/pipelines/792035 about a
> job processing a commit on the Dec 2024 bits post, but not a (failed)
> job for
> typesetting the Jan 2025 bits post.  Did I miss something or does the
> ci/cd need
> some more tweaking to get that rolling?
> 
> If I push a commit on content/2025/dpl-bits/bits-from-the-dpl-
> january.md , will
> a ci/cd job get kicked off, which will process the markdown?
> 
> Thanks, Bye,
> 
> Joost
> 

Thanks for the review.

Currently, ci/cd scans all .md files in the /content directory (841
files) and not just file(s) from the last commit. This is why I found it
urgent to correct all markdown failures. But apparently the process does
not prevent building files after the faulty files.
The problem for me is that the process takes time (more than 5 minutes).
It could be interesting if only the files concerned by the last commit
are parsed. If the contributorn who produces a commit with markdown
failures does not fix their mistakes, the job fails, and someone has to
clean up periodically...

I think it would be helpful
1) if everyone corrected their files when they cause failures (or ask
help to learn how to do that)
2) if everyone had a tool on their computer to parse and fix files before
pushing them.

This would save everyone time by also avoiding building a docker image on
each commit. Perhaps a once-a-day scan of /content would be sufficient
then.

Bye,

jipege



Reply to: