On Thu, 18.02.16 09:01, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> you might already have noticed, but from now on PRs will not only
> trigger the semaphore checks (which are essentially a "make
> distcheck"), but also trigger more comprehensive integration tests on
> Ubuntu's a
Martin Pitt [2016-02-18 9:01 +0100]:
> However, an awful lot of the runs currently fail with a linker error.
> I filed [2] and will investigate.
Thanks to Filipe that got fixed quickly (it was a recent bug in the
build system indeed). Fun thing is that I didn't actually intend to do
that "--disab
Michael Biebl wrote on 18/02/16 14:39:
> Great stuff!
>
> Thanks for working on that, Martin and Daniel.
Yeah this is really good stuff and will be a great help!
Col
--
Colin Guthrie
gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie
http://colin.guthr.ie/
Day Job:
Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open
Great stuff!
Thanks for working on that, Martin and Daniel.
Regards,
Michael
2016-02-18 9:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Pitt :
> Hello all,
>
> you might already have noticed, but from now on PRs will not only
> trigger the semaphore checks (which are essentially a "make
> distcheck"), but also trigger mo
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson [2016-02-18 11:35 +]:
> Arguably not if upstream test do not detect these things then they should be
> fixed to do so
The upstream tests are mostly unit tests which cover isolated logic.
Of course having more coverage there would be great, but that's not
the point here. s
On 02/18/2016 11:26 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 02/18/2016 12:19 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>On 02/18/2016 10:22 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>>I disagree. All sorts of testing is good for us, and if a PR is breaking
>>downstream Ubuntu, and we recognize that before merging, that's really
>>gre
On 02/18/2016 10:43 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
I'd actually turn it the other way around and claim that if Fedora,
Arch, etc. have downstream tests, then please trigger them too. After
all, failures of them don't block anything (right now, anyway), and
having the extra information in the PRs can onl
On 02/18/2016 12:19 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 02/18/2016 10:22 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> I disagree. All sorts of testing is good for us, and if a PR is breaking
>> downstream Ubuntu, and we recognize that before merging, that's really
>> great.
>
> I'm all for more testing the better
On 02/18/2016 10:22 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
I disagree. All sorts of testing is good for us, and if a PR is breaking
downstream Ubuntu, and we recognize that before merging, that's really
great.
I'm all for more testing the better but due to downstream fragmentation
all these have the same fund
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson [2016-02-18 10:08 +]:
> Will failed tests or false positives start auto creating issues on github?
> If so is that really the smart thing do to here?
IMHO not. The idea is that raising the red flag on the PR should be
enough, and that the point of the CI tests is to not l
On 02/18/2016 11:08 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 02/18/2016 08:01 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
>> So please don't put too much attention to these results yet. I want to
>> to enable them to see how the testing and communication holds up in
>> practice, but before this we definitively need to sor
On 02/18/2016 08:01 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
So please don't put too much attention to these results yet. I want to
to enable them to see how the testing and communication holds up in
practice, but before this we definitively need to sort out [2] first.
Will failed tests or false positives start
Hello all,
you might already have noticed, but from now on PRs will not only
trigger the semaphore checks (which are essentially a "make
distcheck"), but also trigger more comprehensive integration tests on
Ubuntu's autopkgtest infrastructure. These build actual binary .deb
packages, install them
13 matches
Mail list logo
