Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On 10/4/2015 19:46, Junio C Hamano wrote: The very nice thing with Travis-CI is that it does not only test the repository's branches, but also all pull-requests. OK, that is the first real argument I heard for enabling it on git/git that is worth listening to. I was mentioning that very

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Dennis Kaarsemaker writes: > On zo, 2015-10-04 at 10:46 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> One final question. Which configuration file does the CI use when >> running a PR-initiated test? The one already in the repository >> i.e. the target of the proposed pull, or the

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Dennis Kaarsemaker writes: > On zo, 2015-10-04 at 10:46 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> One final question. Which configuration file does the CI use when >> running a PR-initiated test? The one already in the repository >> i.e. the target of the proposed pull, or the

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Junio C Hamano writes: > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Roberto Tyley wrote: >> >> Given this, enabling Travis CI for git/git seems pretty low risk, >> are there any strong objections to it happening? > > I still don't see a reason why git/git needs

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On za, 2015-10-03 at 18:37 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > If somebody says "I've been maintaining a clone of git/git with > Travis webhooks enabled and as the result caught this many glitches > during the past two months without any ill side effect. I've been maintaining a clone of git/git with a

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Hi Junio, On 2015-10-04 03:37, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Roberto Tyley >> wrote: >>> >>> Given this, enabling Travis CI for git/git seems pretty low risk, >>> are there any strong objections

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Matthieu Moy writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: >> >> I still don't see a reason why git/git needs to be the one that is >> used, > > The very nice thing with Travis-CI is that it does not only test the > repository's branches, but also all

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Matthieu Moy writes: > Currenty, to mimick this flow, we would need something like > > 1) User activates Travis-CI on his repo (each user would have to do >this, not just once) > > 2) User commits .travis.yml on top of the code to submit > > 3) User pushes to

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On zo, 2015-10-04 at 10:46 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > One final question. Which configuration file does the CI use when > running a PR-initiated test? The one already in the repository > i.e. the target of the proposed pull, or the one that is possibly > updated by the PR? > > I am wondering

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On 28 September 2015 at 19:47, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I won't enable it on github.com:gitster/git anyway, so I do not > think that is a concern. I thought what people are talking about > was to add it on github.com:git/git, but have I been misreading the > thread? I do not

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Roberto Tyley wrote: > > Given this, enabling Travis CI for git/git seems pretty low risk, > are there any strong objections to it happening? I still don't see a reason why git/git needs to be the one that is used, when somebody so

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Junio C Hamano writes: > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Roberto Tyley wrote: >> >> Given this, enabling Travis CI for git/git seems pretty low risk, >> are there any strong objections to it happening? > > I still don't see a reason why git/git needs

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 11:23:52PM +0100, Roberto Tyley wrote: > On 28 September 2015 at 19:47, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I won't enable it on github.com:gitster/git anyway, so I do not > > think that is a concern. I thought what people are talking about > > was to add it on

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On 25.09.2015 05:14, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote: My idea is that the owner of "https://github.com/git/git; enables this account for Travis (it's free!). Then we would automatically get the test state for all official branches. The last time I heard about this "it's free" thing, I thought I

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Matthieu Moy writes: > * If the tests always pass, nobody ever get any email from Travis-CI. Actually, I've just been reminded that the repository owner gets one email per new ref (tag, branch) by default. Deactivating completely email notification is as simple as

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Matthieu Moy writes: > It probably makes sense to do the later in the case of Git, so that > Junio doesn't get spammed when pushing topic branches to > https://github.com/gitster/git. I won't enable it on github.com:gitster/git anyway, so I do not think that is a

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > My experience with Travis-CI is that it just works I can second that. When I was contributing to other projects[1][2], Travis helped a lot. Currently I have a cronjob to get https://scan.coverity.com/ running

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Junio C Hamano writes: > Matthieu Moy writes: > >> It probably makes sense to do the later in the case of Git, so that >> Junio doesn't get spammed when pushing topic branches to >> https://github.com/gitster/git. > > I won't enable it on

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Luke Diamand writes: > It would be less intrusive for the CI system to have a fork. Otherwise > other people using git with the same CI system will get annoying merge > conflicts, What conflicts are you talking about? The ones in .travis.yml? The point is to share this file so

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On 25 Sep 2015, at 10:05, Luke Diamand wrote: > On 25 September 2015 at 08:27, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2015-09-25 05:14, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote: >>> On do, 2015-09-24 at 17:41 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:29:31AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > So I wonder if it would be >> > helpful to have a microformat that the client would use to look at this. >> > E.g., it would fetch the cert tree, then

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 05:41:06PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Of course, this can be improved if we start using signed push into > GitHub. It is a separate issue in the sense that it would help > GitHub to make that assurance stronger---those who fetch/clone can > be assured that the tips of

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:29:31AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > When I finally complain to the hosting site that it is deliberately > rejecting the fix that would rob them the illicit revenue source, it > does not help the hosting site to keep copies of push certificates > when it wants to

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Luke Diamand writes: > From past experience, if it's configured to email people when things > break, sooner or later it will email the wrong people, probably once > every few seconds over a weekend. > > Automated testing is a Good Thing, but it's still software, so needs >

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Jeff King writes: > If the point is for clients not to trust GitHub, though, it doesn't > really matter what GitHub does with the cert, as long as it is put > somewhere that clients know to get it. Correct. A spiffy Web interface that says "Click this button and we show you the

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On 25 September 2015 at 08:27, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015-09-25 05:14, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote: >> On do, 2015-09-24 at 17:41 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes: >>> >>> > My idea is that the owner of

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

Hi, On 2015-09-25 05:14, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote: > On do, 2015-09-24 at 17:41 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes: >> >> > My idea is that the owner of "https://github.com/git/git; enables this >> > account >> > for Travis (it's free!). Then we would automatically

[RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

From: Lars Schneider The tests are executed on "Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Server Edition 64 bit" and on "OS X Mavericks" using gcc and clang. Perforce and Git-LFS are installed and therefore available for the respective tests. Signed-off-by: Lars Schneider

[RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

From: Lars Schneider Hi, I recently broke a few tests... In order to avoid that in the future I configured Travis CI for Git. With this patch Travis can run all Git tests including the "git-p4" and "Git-LFS" tests. The tests are executed on "Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Server

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

On do, 2015-09-24 at 17:41 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes: > > > My idea is that the owner of "https://github.com/git/git; enables this > > account > > for Travis (it's free!). Then we would automatically get the test state for > > all > > official branches. > >

Re: [RFC/PATCH v1] Add Travis CI support

larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes: > In order to avoid that in the future I configured Travis CI for Git. With this > patch Travis can run all Git tests including the "git-p4" and "Git-LFS" tests. Interesting. I was wondering about the "p4" part myself. > My idea is that the owner of