CI: Set job names.

[ehuss]

This should make it easier to identify what each job is doing when looking at the Travis or Appveyor UI.

• Set name for each job in Travis.
• Move CI_JOB_NAME to the front in Appveyor so that it appears first in the UI.

[rust-highfive]

r? @nikomatsakis

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[ehuss]

This changes the job name for a few jobs for consistency, such as x86_64-apple → check-x86_64-apple. If there are any external tools tracking jobs by name, this will likely cause some disruption. If such tools exist, I can change the names back to their original.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@rustbot modify labels to I-nominated and T-infra.

We should discuss this at the next meeting and if there are no concerns raised r=me on the implementation.

Cc @alexcrichton, @pietroalbini, and @kennytm in particular

[kennytm]

I'm leaning towards not changing the CI job names since I don't see the appeal of having a "consistent" $VERB-$NOUN-style name. AFAIK no automated services need to distinguish between different jobs based on the $VERB. Plus the existing names are already recorded throughout the spurious PR tracking sheet.

As for the PR itself, why some jobs are named check-xxx and some are named test-xxx? For instance the check-x86_64-linux (existing name x86_64-gnu-llvm-6.0) and check-x86_64-apple (existing name x86_64-apple) jobs still run the full test suite.

[Centril]

Having clearer names on the overview of builds, e.g. https://travis-ci.com/rust-lang/rust/builds/103795945, would be useful when doing rollups. For example, what each macOS builder does is really cryptic... @kennytm What's are the drawbacks to this change?

[kennytm]

@Centril I'm +1 with adding the name: field, but -0 with changing the name from x86_64-apple to check-x86_64-apple.

[Centril]

@kennytm Oh... I'm fine with whatever on that front.

[ehuss]

I'm sorry, I somehow had it in my mind that "check" and "test" were different. I have reverted the name changes, so every job name should now be the same as before.

If you want a preview of what it looks like, here are some samples:
https://travis-ci.org/ehuss/test/builds/504330368
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/ehuss/test/builds/22962579

[pietroalbini]

👍 This is way clearer when looking for a job, and it shouldn't affect anything else.

[alexcrichton]

@bors: r+

Looks like since the renamings are backed out this is otherwise equivalent, and definitely much nicer to read on the travis side of things

[bors]

📌 Commit 8371377 has been approved by alexcrichton

[pietroalbini]

Removing the nomination since the team already approved the PR.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #59226) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[pietroalbini]

@bors r=alexcrichton

[bors]

📌 Commit 2070414 has been approved by alexcrichton