Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
  1. Mar 22, 2019
  2. Oct 31, 2018
  3. Dec 15, 2017
    • 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. Oct 27, 2017
  5. Oct 03, 2017
  6. Jul 19, 2017
  7. Jun 23, 2017
  8. Mar 31, 2017
  9. Mar 20, 2017
  10. Jan 08, 2017
  11. Nov 19, 2016
  12. Sep 23, 2016
  13. Sep 22, 2016
  14. Aug 27, 2016
  15. Jul 15, 2016
  16. Jun 18, 2016
  17. Jun 07, 2016
  18. Apr 08, 2016
  19. Apr 05, 2016
Loading