Hi, Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes:
> Hudson. However, I don't think that a CI framework is what we need or > want. As I said, simply running the tests (preferrably with two different > versions of Emacs) should be enough for now. Unless we hear from Jason if > he thinks the server can take the extra load its a moot point to discuss > details, but I think this can be done in one of the Git hooks (much like > Worg triggers publishing). Yagnesh Raghava Yakkala <h...@yagnesh.org> writes: > About hudson/jenkins (any other CI), If we have resources on the server, I > would say we should go for it. That will remove Bastien's concern of slowing > down development because of running tests by hand. I'm copying Jason -- the idea is to run tests on the servers via a Git hook, the same way that a Git hook publishes Worg. If the tests fail, the committer would get a warning and the commit would be discarded. Jason, do you think it's feasible? Enough? I guess hudson/travis is really too much for our needs. Thanks, -- Bastien
