| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:22:21 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Alexey Lapitsky <lex.public@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Here's a naive example how it might work: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> 1. A user creates a PR |
| 8 |
>> 2. travis-ci automatically runs QA tests: repoman full on the PR, |
| 9 |
>> reports the result back |
| 10 |
>> 3. Github hook is emitted, a "system" does some processing: for |
| 11 |
>> example, create a bug in bugzilla, notify the maintainer, comment on |
| 12 |
>> the PR |
| 13 |
>> 4. The relevant maintainer checks the PR, comments: "looks fine, |
| 14 |
>> merging" 5. Github hook is emitted to "the system", which checks the |
| 15 |
>> PR comments, does some sanity checks, merges commit back to cvs, |
| 16 |
>> rejects the PR |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> "The system" might be a simple script which has opt-in membership for |
| 19 |
>> the subsystems / maintainers who wants to use it. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Does it sound sane? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Exherbo has been doing something along those lines for ages, and not |
| 24 |
> just for repoman: there's also full build testing (from a clean system, |
| 25 |
> to check dependencies are correct). It's not very hard to do. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Including having two repositories both being committed to, with a |
| 29 |
delayed propagation of commits from each to the other? Somehow I |
| 30 |
doubt that is what you're doing with exherbo. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The CI isn't the part I'm picking on here. The idea of still working |
| 33 |
in cvs while having a separate CI and commit path in git that applies |
| 34 |
back to cvs is the part that sounds rather prone to breakage. That |
| 35 |
seems like a massive hack. The real solution is to get the heck off |
| 36 |
of cvs. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Rich |
Archives