[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [STUMP] Travis CI broken on Github

From: David Bjergaard
Subject: Re: [STUMP] Travis CI broken on Github
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:25:41 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Hi Evan,

Responses inline:

Evan <address@hidden> writes:

> When you say "sbcl always passes" do you mean even when broken code is 
> committed?
I mean when sbcl builds successfully if the code is OK. If you commit broken
code, then sbcl will fail. Conversely clisp and ccl always fail even if the code
is clearly fine (ie you add a comment and commit it, or change a file that
doesn't depend on the build)
> Where is the code for the travis builds kept? Do we have a repo containing 
> the directives
> that travis follows?
As far as I can tell the recipe is stumpwm/.travis.yml  and "" which
is the main driver of the code.  The latest and greatest is here:
> With regards to ditching travis if we can't figure out how to get the 
> ccl/clisp builds to
> work properly, it seems that we're still better off with one of the platforms 
> being
> tested, even if it means you have to investigate every failed travis build. 
> It's not
> ideal, and it'd probably be worth it to either cut out or move the ccl/clisp 
> builds to
> their own branch while we investigate what's wrong, but ditching travis all 
> together is
> probably unnecessary.
Ok agreed, but I would prefer that we be able to have a "build passing" badge on
stumpwm's main page so users can at least judge whether or not the master branch
is safe to use.  


> -E
> On 08/07/2015 03:34 AM, David Bjergaard wrote:
>> sbcl always passes, while clisp and ccl fail:
>> ccl:
>> clisp:
>> sbcl:
>>     David
>> Evan <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Can you give an example of how the travis builds are broken?
>>> -E
>>> On 08/06/2015 03:16 AM, David Bjergaard wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Does anyone know how to fix the travis builds? Its making it really hard 
>>>> to know
>>>> if its safe to merge PRs or if I'm not breaking stuff.  If it can't be 
>>>> fixed, I
>>>> would prefer that we remove it and go back to the old way (waiting for bug
>>>> reports :$)
>>>>     Dave
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
>>>> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]