From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix t3404 assumption that `wc -l` does not use whitespace. Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 07:20:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20080515112030.GA12781@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20080427151610.GB57955@Hermes.local> <20080428094119.GA20499@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080513091143.GA26248@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Brian Gernhardt , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Ralphson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 15 13:21:57 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JwbWW-0001vO-Kb for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 15 May 2008 13:21:25 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755001AbYEOLUe (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 07:20:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755095AbYEOLUd (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 07:20:33 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:2356 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754974AbYEOLUd (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 07:20:33 -0400 Received: (qmail 24760 invoked by uid 111); 15 May 2008 11:20:31 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 May 2008 07:20:31 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 15 May 2008 07:20:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:16:27AM +0100, Mike Ralphson wrote: > Which branch(es) would it be most useful on which to have this > automated build/test cycle? I would think maint, master, and next, but with next as the least important. I think Junio generally tests maint and master before publishing, but presumably not always next (as there was test breakage in next earlier today). > Although the list of tags might get slightly unwieldy (i.e. the top > commit will gain a lot of tags if all is well), with a sensible naming > convention, these tags could be pushed to a central repo (a regularly > updated clone of git.git) allowing easy visibility of the current > state of the 'build collective'. > > Something like {intials}_{uname info}_{branch}_KNOWN_{BUILDING|PASSING} ? I have started tagging my auto-builds as you suggest. It should be easy enough to push to a repo.or.cz repository. Although I'm not sure of the utility of auto-publishing this information. Who is going to look at it? I had assumed a workflow more like "it passes 99% of the time; in the remaining 1%, the cron job kicks off a message to the owning user, who then investigates and/or writes a bug report to the list." That implies a little bit of expertise and work from the user owning the build, but: - presumably it won't happen very frequently - they are probably the only person with the resources to diganose and fix, anyway, since they are the ones with access to the platform. -Peff