Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Funk
"Thomas Adam" wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > > I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no > > questions appears anymore ;) > > > > I can add it to the document, no prob. > > I've added a few words about this,

Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no > questions appears anymore ;) > > I can add it to the document, no prob. I've added a few words about this, without making this a rule, which hopefully people

Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Funk
"Thomas Adam" wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > > One point: > > Should we use for development branches a special nomination like > > feature_xy, fix_abc? > > Or only a README which describes the feature/fix? > > I don't think that's

Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > One point: > Should we use for development branches a special nomination like feature_xy, > fix_abc? > Or only a README which describes the feature/fix? I don't think that's necessary. Typically, you have this pattern:

Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

2016-03-24 Thread Thomas Funk
"Thomas Adam" wrote: > I was thinking along the lines of this diff: > > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/f81b2f4d7412813f12b235d8f1914409da0bbae9.patch > > Which you can view rendered here: > > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/ta/git-docs/docs/DEVELOPERS.md > > What

Re: travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"

2016-03-24 Thread Thomas Adam
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:48:55PM +0100, Viktor Griph wrote: > Cool. Would it be possible to stick some unit test framework to it as well? Sorry, Viktor, I missed this point the last time round. Yes, that's possible, and depending on how we decide to write unit tests, it can just hook into the

Re: travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"

2016-03-24 Thread Viktor Griph
Den 24 mar 2016 5:22 em skrev "Thomas Adam" : > > Hi all, > > I've to document this formally, but I wanted to let you know of a few options > I've enabled for the "master" branch on the main fvwm Git repository. > > All pushes by default (across all branches) will now have Travis

Re: travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"

2016-03-24 Thread Thomas Adam
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:48:55PM +0100, Viktor Griph wrote: > Is our strategy for handling of branches and pull requests summarized > anywhere? I'm working on that. Will put that out for tenure later on today. -- Thomas Adam

travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"

2016-03-24 Thread Thomas Adam
Hi all, I've to document this formally, but I wanted to let you know of a few options I've enabled for the "master" branch on the main fvwm Git repository. All pushes by default (across all branches) will now have Travis CI ran against them. Travis is a Continuous Integration tool[1] which