On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Chris Roby <[email protected]>wrote:
> I think this might be the best of both worlds: > http://about.travis-ci.org/blog/announcing-pull-request-support/ Oh that's goodness! -Kyle > > -- > Chris Roby > > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Lance Speelmon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good points - I certainly do not want to dilute the code review practices >> already in place. Just trying to reduce the amount of time it takes to do >> so… Any ideas on how to get the best of both worlds? i.e. letting CI do >> what it is good at but not compromising code review? >> >> >> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Chris Tweney <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > For the most part, I think committers need to build every PR they >> > review, for a couple of reasons: >> > >> > 1) Smoke testing and edge case testing is part of the review process. If >> > you don't build it, you obviously aren't running it and making sure it >> > works. Code reviews that only involve reading code tend to drift toward >> > mere enforcement of style standards, which is necessary, but not >> > sufficient. We adopted code reviews because there was a time when a lot >> > of unfinished, untested work was getting committed. >> > >> > 2) We have a lot of commits going in, and most builds have multiple >> > commits. If a build breaks, everyone who committed in that build needs >> > to stop their work and check the build. And everyone unlucky enough to >> > pull from master during the broken build time will have their work >> > interrupted. That amounts to more people and more time lost than if the >> > committer runs a build. >> > >> > Now, there are occasional exceptions -- I just merged a pull from Zach >> > that I didn't build. But it was a 2-line change that just introduced the >> > use of a constant in place of a numeric literal. Not the kind of thing >> > that really needed a second compile. (Of course, if the constant was >> > misspelled, I'll have egg on my face in a little while... but then, so >> > will Zach, for submitted an uncompiled change!) >> > >> > One thing that would save a lot of my time is if I had a second box to >> > do builds on. I should look into getting an EC2 instance to do builds >> > on. I think my usage might fit into the free usage tier. >> > >> > -chris >> > >> > >> > On 6/22/12 9:39 AM, Lance Speelmon wrote: >> >> Is it correct in assuming we have CI builds for every commit in >> projects? If so, could I suggest that people's time is too valuable to >> spend building every PR manually? >> >> >> >> WDYT? Thanks, L >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> oae-dev mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-dev >> > _______________________________________________ >> > oae-dev mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> oae-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > oae-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-dev > > -- Kyle Campos Director of Quality Operations / rSmart [email protected] skype: kyle.campos phone: 623-455-6180 GTalk: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ oae-dev mailing list [email protected] http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-dev
