On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 1:04 PM Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:02:54PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:

quoted

Overall, I think Ævar's plan to parallelize linting via "make" is
probably the way to go.

TBH, I think just running the linter once per test script when the
script is run would be sufficient. That is one extra process per script,
but they are already shell scripts running a bunch of processes. You get
parallelism for free because you're already running the tests in
parallel. You lose out on "don't bother linting because the file hasn't
changed", but I'm not sure that's really worth the extra complexity
overall.

Hmm, yes, that's appealing (especially since I've essentially given up
on making linting fast on Windows), and it wouldn't be hard to
implement. In fact, it's already implemented by 23a14f3016 (test-lib:
replace chainlint.sed with chainlint.pl, 2022-09-01); making it work
the way you describe would just involve dropping 69b9924b87
(t/Makefile: teach `make test` and `make prove` to run chainlint.pl,
2022-09-01) and 29fb2ec384 (chainlint.pl: validate test scripts in
parallel, 2022-09-01).

I think Ævar's use-case for `make` parallelization was to speed up
git-bisect runs. But thinking about it now, the likelihood of "lint"
problems cropping up during a git-bisect run is effectively nil, in
which case setting GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT=1 should be a perfectly
appropriate way to take linting out of the equation when bisecting.