Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

Help on https://github.com/madjar/nox/issues/38 is appreciated methinks :-) On Wed, Mar 2, 2016, 2:46 AM Herwig Hochleitner wrote: > 2016-02-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 zimbatm : > >> What if master was always the latest successful hydra build ? People >>

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

2016-02-14 19:44 GMT+01:00 zimbatm : > What if master was always the latest successful hydra build ? People could > rebase on top and have cached builds. Nox could also have cached builds. > +1 for having Travis build against the latest successful hydra build. Don't care

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:06, Александр Цамутали wrote: > > 14.02.2016, 21:44, "zimbatm" : >> What if master was always the latest successful hydra build ? People could >> rebase on top and have cached builds. Nox could also have cached builds. >> >>

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

14.02.2016, 21:44, "zimbatm" : > What if master was always the latest successful hydra build ? People could > rebase on top and have cached builds. Nox could also have cached builds. > > Instead of merging a PR we would instruct Hydra to queue the build. If the > build is

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

What if master was always the latest successful hydra build ? People could rebase on top and have cached builds. Nox could also have cached builds. Instead of merging a PR we would instruct Hydra to queue the build. If the build is successful hydra would merge it into master and close the PR.

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

There are several things we need to check in a PR even if it builds successfully. On 14 Feb 2016 21:44, "zimbatm" wrote: > What if master was always the latest successful hydra build ? People could > rebase on top and have cached builds. Nox could also have cached builds. >

[Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

Hello, I have been trying to submit a pull request for quite some time but keep getting bitten by the Travis testing. The problem boils down to a couple of things. Firstly travis has build limits both in terms of log size and build time. These are expected and while there is possibility of

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

Thanks - I think it's worth a try. Could you open an issue? I also have some ideas how to dodge logs limit. On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Kevin Cox wrote: > Hello, > > I have been trying to submit a pull request for quite some time but keep > getting bitten by the

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

On 02/13/2016 03:41 PM, Kevin Cox wrote: > > TL;DR building PRs based off of latest master often takes too many > resources for Travis so we should base CI builds off of the PR branch. > 100% agreed. While we're on the topic of Travis and pull requests, our contribution guide currently

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

Wouldn't this all be less of an issue if the build on Hydra wasn't behind by weeks? Should we talk about how to improve that? Personally I don't even know how to navigate or interpret Hydra when I go look at it. On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:48 AM Jakob Gillich wrote: > I assume

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

On Sat, 2016-02-13 at 17:48 +0100, Jakob Gillich wrote: > I assume PR branch refers to unstable? Or even a stable branch? I > don't really see how testing against non-master is better when you're > submitting something for master. The PR will still be based of master but master as of a couple of

Re: [Nix-dev] Travis Testing Needs Rethinking

On Sat, 2016-02-13 at 17:03 +, Adam Russell wrote: > Wouldn't this all be less of an issue if the build on Hydra wasn't > behind by weeks? Should we talk about how to improve that? Personally > I don't even know how to navigate or interpret Hydra when I go look > at it. > I don't think Hydra