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

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Roberto Tyley [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 interested (and I seem to see very many of them in the thread) can
sacrifice his or
her own fork and enable it him or herself.

To state it a bit differently.

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.  Here are
the patches to fix them, and by the way, the first patch in this
series is not a fix but the configuration to tell Travis how to run
tests so that other people can enable it on _their_ own fork before
they send their own series to the mailing list." in the cover letter
of a patch series, I would appreciate such a series greatly and
would not mind carrying one extra yml file in the tree at all.

But that is not what I am seeing in this thread at all.  I am tired
of hearing people telling others to help them by doing more without
doing the grunt work themselves.