Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
>
> Committing without testing, as long as you don't push, is fine, even
> meritorious.  It's the push that uploads those commits to the gentoo
> reference repo, however, and testing should *definitely* be done before
> pushing, with more commits /before/ the push to fix what the tests found
> to be broken, should they be necessary.
>

Of course.  In fact, this is often the type of workflow you'd tend to
employ in a CI setup.  I believe that pull requests submitted on
github get automatically tinderboxed, though I have no idea whether
that provides any benefits to something like an eclass (if the CI
script just tests the ebuilds being modified it obviously would not).
Maybe in a perfect world we'd actually have a CI testing package
category with dummy packages that do nothing but run tests to cover
this sort of thing.

Even so, I would imagine that in most organizations CI is intended
more as a sanity check than a substitute for testing your own work.
Certainly where I work the expectation is that somebody would have at
least compiled and run something before putting it into some kind of
QA workflow, even with CI.

-- 
Rich