• 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
Name
Last commit
Last update
..
keys Loading commit data...
abuild-apk Loading commit data...
build-pkgs Loading commit data...
common.sh Loading commit data...
install-alpine Loading commit data...
setup-alpine Loading commit data...