Re: Explicitly enable meson features in CI

Hi,

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 at 19:02, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-07-16 14:12:22 +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 at 14:00, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 at 20:12, Jacob Champion
> > > <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 2:59 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > Andres off-list mentioned that if we explicitly enable features for
> > > > > *all* of the tasks, then none of the tasks will be testing the auto
> > > > > feature option and I agree with Andres. My suggestion is setting
> > > > > features to auto for Debian - Meson task. I decided on this because I
> > > > > think it is the most checked CI task
> > > >
> > > > Hehe, that's certainly true for me...
> > > >
> > > > > so it would be easier to catch if
> > > > > one of the features is disabled without anyone noticing.
> > > >
> > > > Seems reasonable. If we do this, can we rename the job with a "- Meson
> > > > Auto" suffix or something, to try to call the difference out
> > > > explicitly?
> > >
> > > I think renaming it would be better but then we have two Linux tasks:
> > >
> > > - Linux - Debian Bookworm - Autoconf
> > > - Linux - Debian Bookworm - Meson Auto
> > >
> > > For me it looks like 'Meson Auto' can be confused with 'Autoconf'. We
> > > can rename it as a 'Meson Auto Feature Detection' but that is a bit
> > > longer. Do you have any ideas? If you think 'Meson Auto' is good
> > > enough, we can continue with it, too.
> >
> > I renamed 'Meson Auto' as 'Meson Auto Feature Detection' in v5.
>
> FWIW, I don't think it's a good idea to the Auto bit to the name. We have
> several special things about various tests, if we add all of them to the task
> name, we'll have very long task names. This one would already be
>
> Linux - Debian Bookworm - Meson Auto Features Detection - 32 and 64 Bit build & tests - Alignment, Undefined Behaviour Sanitizer - IO method=io_uring
>
> And the task names would change a lot more, which is also a pain for things
> like the commitfest / cfbot web apps.

I don't have a strong opinion on this. I think the naming change
clarifies things but as you said then we may/should add other specific
settings to the task name. So, I reverted the naming change.

> But it *should* be added to the "SPECIAL:" comment.

Done.

v6 is attached.

--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft