>
> Thanks for this Misagh.
>
> Maybe, in order to minimize the "noise" and possibly to allow you to run
> faster, what do you think of experimenting with Travis CI on your own
> fork? You'd only have to change the notification address as throw-away
> change.
Yup, sounds like a plan!
Parent
On 09/09/19 16:07, Misagh Moayyed wrote:
>> thanks for bringing this item to discussion: improving our CI power is
>> definitely more than welcome.
>>
>> I would say there are several requirements one might want to handle:
> All sounds excellent. Once the proper structure is in, it would be quite
> thanks for bringing this item to discussion: improving our CI power is
> definitely more than welcome.
>
> I would say there are several requirements one might want to handle:
All sounds excellent. Once the proper structure is in, it would be quite easy
to add jobs to cover all additional
On 09/09/19 11:37, Misagh Moayyed wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> In discussing git workflows with Francesco, I have learned that the Travis CI
> process is not actually running a comprehensive set of tests and checks (such
> as checkstyle, etc) that would be valuable for pull requests and
>
Hi Misagh,
It sounds good to me, so +1!
Thank you!
Best regards,
Matteo
On 09/09/19 11:37, Misagh Moayyed wrote:
Hello all,
In discussing git workflows with Francesco, I have learned that the Travis CI
process is not actually running a comprehensive set of tests and checks (such
as
Hi Misagh,
+1 for me!
I'm not so expert of Travis, but this proposal sounds very good to me,
mostly for the possibility to run all tests and organize better build
sections. Several times I meet with "but works on my machine" problem :)
With the help of jobs, I would also enable console and
