From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] t7300: mark test with SANITY Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:35:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20160503213556.GA25133@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1462301672-20866-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> <20160503190417.GD30530@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160503211528.GA32737@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Roberto Tyley , Stefan Beller , git@vger.kernel.org, janx@linux.com, Lars Schneider To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 03 23:36:04 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1axhzA-00086Y-CM for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 23:36:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756547AbcECVgA (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2016 17:36:00 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:33452 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756430AbcECVf7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2016 17:35:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 29372 invoked by uid 102); 3 May 2016 21:35:58 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 03 May 2016 17:35:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 2327 invoked by uid 107); 3 May 2016 21:36:10 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 03 May 2016 17:36:10 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 03 May 2016 17:35:56 -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 Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:19:24PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Maybe. I admit to not really using the Travis tests myself, as they are > > way too slow and cumbersome to debug compared to just running "make > > test". The primary value to me of centralized CI is: > > > > 1. _If_ people are looking at PRs on GitHub, the test status is shown > > right there in the PR, without a reviewer having to wonder whether > > the submitter ran "make test". But since I don't ever look at PRs > > for Git, that's not helpful. > > What I was hoping was that bots like SubmitGit could look at that > status. Yeah, I think that would be pretty trivial to do. It's already interacting with GitHub's API, and I think there's a simple call to query the test status (so it wouldn't even require SubmitGit talking to Travis directly). I don't think that really solves the problem overall, though. SubmitGit is still a minority of patch submissions (and I wouldn't expect that to change, but maybe I'm just a curmudgeon). -Peff