From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix t3404 assumption that `wc -l` does not use whitespace. Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 10:18:52 -0700 Message-ID: <7vr6c3h4eb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080427151610.GB57955@Hermes.local> <20080428094119.GA20499@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080513091143.GA26248@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080515112030.GA12781@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Mike Ralphson , Brian Gernhardt , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 15 19:20:23 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 1Jwh7b-0003cZ-6f for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 15 May 2008 19:20:03 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751082AbYEORTN (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 13:19:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750905AbYEORTN (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 13:19:13 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:60558 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750830AbYEORTM (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE945869; Thu, 15 May 2008 13:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22ED55862; Thu, 15 May 2008 13:19:00 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20080515112030.GA12781@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 15 May 2008 07:20:30 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 06DA7028-22A3-11DD-86DD-80001473D85F-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > 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). I'd prefer heterogeneous automated test coverage to be on 'next' and 'master'. If the coverage extends to 'maint' that would be nicer, but on the other hand, I rarely apply anything remotely questionable directly on top of maint (instead, I'd fork from maint and merge the result first to next or master), so if we can catch master and next, we should be Ok. Before any push-out, I ran tests on all four integration branches on Debian (etch) and FC (I think it is FC5), both x86-64. But sometimes 'pu' is shipped with known breakage in tests. I can not push out with broken tests in 'maint', 'master' or 'next' (automated procedure on my end prevents me from doing so).