On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> > >>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>> Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time > >> > >> so just don;t look at it ? > >> > > no-op. it is there telling people that everything worked and if failed > we > > get questions about it. > > > > and … > > There is a difference between abandoning Travis and not looking at the > results for 4.6 release. > > My gut reaction is to try to understand why Travis is behaving strangely > and fix it, rather than abandon. > > By “not look at it”, I am saying don’t base your review + merge on master > for 4.6 if you have a good case for it. > So we have to consider it browse through the result to find once again it was a false negative or - positive to make a case for ignoring it. >>> and more important costing > >>> time of 'innocent' contributors. > >> > >> What do you mean by that, I am not understanding. > >> > > people get questions to force push to make travis happy and we have a > > policy to not ignore travis without comments on the reason for doing so. > > > > The first time I saw Travis was not behaving and saw a comment from > someone else about it was on my own PR. > I think you did some. especially all the requests to force push. >>> So ... revert at your will. -- Daan
