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

Hi Junio,

On 2015-10-04 03:37, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.

Heh... given that Travis CI requires that .travis.yml file, nobody can really say that they have been using Travis CI *before* you add that file to `master`. If you make successful testing with Travis a *precondition* before adding that file, it is kinda asking for the impossible.

Now, I like Travis, even if I have used Jenkins previously (came as part of my previous day-job). And my experience with Jenkins (in the form of BuildHive) was pretty positive: it *did* catch a couple of breakages. Even with my Git fork.

But I agree with basically everybody who chimed in and said that the biggest bang for the buck would be made by enabling it on https://github.com/git/git.

The only cost I see is for that `.travis.yml` file to live in Git's source code. Small price to pay, if you ask me. If you do not want to use it yourself, that is fine. But I would like to ask for it to be included so that those of us who do want to benefit from Travis' testing are not precluded from doing so [*1*].

As far as I can tell, the patch is fine as-is. Although I would put the `before_script` commands into some file inside `contrib/`.

Thanks,
Dscho

Footnote *1*: of course it would be possible to manually rebase the patch, or to set up a scripted version of that. That is very cumbersome, though, and the benefit would obviously be substantially diminished.