1. 22 Mar, 2019 1 commit
  2. 31 Oct, 2018 1 commit
  3. 15 Dec, 2017 1 commit
    • Jakub Jirutka's avatar
      Revert "travis: require check when not explicitly disabled" · d903a943
      Jakub Jirutka authored
      This reverts commit da4e9b11.
      
      After 1.5 months it's quite clear that this was a bad idea.
      
      Let me describe a typical situation. Contributor wants to do some small
      change in abuild. They did it on their system, it works, so they open a
      PR. And it fails on Travis. Why? Because of missing check(), something
      totally unrelated to their change! Newbies are often confused. Others
      know what to do, but adding check() is often non-trivial. Upstream does
      not provide any tests, tests are broken, extra dependencies are needed,
      etc. The contributor wanted to do just a small change and now they have
      to deal with possibly complicated task. That's not okay.
      
      And the worst is that it caused some devs to ignore CI results. For
      example, contributor added php[57] dependency into main/uwsgi. CI failed
      due to missing check(). Reviewers did not realized that php[57] is in
      the community repository, not main. And some developer merged it despite
      CI failed, to revert it few minutes after because it failed on build
      servers! This is the exact situation that should be prevented by having
      CI.
      
      So, it's a good idea to encourage contributors to add check(), but
      eagerly failing build on CI is definitely not a good way.
      d903a943
  4. 27 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  5. 03 Oct, 2017 2 commits
  6. 19 Jul, 2017 1 commit
  7. 23 Jun, 2017 2 commits
  8. 31 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  9. 20 Mar, 2017 2 commits
  10. 08 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  11. 19 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  12. 23 Sep, 2016 1 commit
  13. 22 Sep, 2016 3 commits
  14. 27 Aug, 2016 1 commit
  15. 15 Jul, 2016 1 commit
  16. 18 Jun, 2016 1 commit
  17. 07 Jun, 2016 3 commits
  18. 08 Apr, 2016 1 commit
  19. 05 Apr, 2016 1 commit