> On 16 Aug 2016, at 22:48, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 30 Jul 2016, at 17:11, Brian Henderson <henderson...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> contrib/diff-highlight/Makefile | 5 ++
>>> contrib/diff-highlight/t/Makefile | 19 +++++++
>>> contrib/diff-highlight/t/t9400-diff-highlight.sh | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> contrib/diff-highlight/t/test-diff-highlight.sh | 69
>>> 4 files changed, 156 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 contrib/diff-highlight/Makefile
>>> create mode 100644 contrib/diff-highlight/t/Makefile
>>> create mode 100644 contrib/diff-highlight/t/t9400-diff-highlight.sh
>>> create mode 100644 contrib/diff-highlight/t/test-diff-highlight.sh
>>> diff --git a/contrib/diff-highlight/Makefile
>> Would it make sense to add the contrib tests to the Travis-CI build, too?
> The more the merrier ;-)? I do not think of a downside, especially
> if you are adding it as a separate thing that comes after the main
> test, or for even better isolation, an entirely separate job.
OK, if I will post a patch (might take a while).
> By the way, how flaky are existing tests? Are people actively
> following breakage reports?
Good question - I was curious about that, too.
That's why I made a little website (only tested on Chrome, requires JS):
There you can see all builds for all branches including their failure reason.
In general I would say flakiness is no issue anymore.
I don't know who else is looking at the breakage reports but I do.
That's the reason for my "next" breakage reports in the past:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html