Re: Continuous Testing of Git on Windows

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2017, 23:46 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq60kdbqmy.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702101241210.3496@virtualbox>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> That is why I taught the Git for Windows CI job that tests the four
> upstream Git integration branches to *also* bisect test breakages and then
> upload comments to the identified commit on GitHub

Good. I do not think it is useful to try 'pu' as an aggregate and expect it to always build and work [*1*], but your "bisect and pinpoint" approach makes it useful to identify individual topic that brings in a breakage. I wouldn't be surprised if original submitter and I were the only two people who actually compiled the patches on a topic in isolation while a topic is in 'pu', and chances are that these two people didn't try their builds on Windows. A CI like this one will help the coverage to stop premature topics from advancing to 'pu' without getting any Windows exposure.

Thanks.

[Footnote]

*1* The reason why topics not in 'next' but in 'pu', especially the
    ones merged near the tip of 'pu', exist in 'pu' are because they
    are interesting enough and could be polished to become eligible
    for 'next' but known to be premature for 'next' yet.  They are
    there primarily to give human contributors an easier way to
    download them as a whole and help polish them.  And I have to be
    selective when I queue things on 'pu'; it is not like I have
    infinite amount of time to pick up any cruft that is sent to the
    list.