Hi Georges, > I think of it more as proof of concept of what CI on the pull > requests can bring us than a final testing workflow.
unfortunately, users submitting pull requests cannot see that the travis-ci job isn't supposed to be considered "reliable". I've run into cases where people submit totally untested patches as a PR, because they assume travis-ci will test the patch for them. Travis, however, comes back with some kind of system failure that gives no indication whether the patch is good or not. This means that users are more likely to submit broken patches because they rely on a safety net that actually doesn't exist. Because of this phenomenon, the travis-ci job actually decreases the quality of our submissions! Is it possible to add a note to the PR status pages that draws people's attention to the fact that the travis-ci service is experimental? Best regards, Peter _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
