> IMO, the top priority is now to fix the failing unit tests; > personally, I'm not going to merge any PR before that is > achieved (and please refer to the JIRA identifier[1] in the > corresponding commit/PR).
agreed. And I still suggest revert back to the last version which can build, and start an investigation/modification about every commit after that. After all it is not good to leave hundreds of commits who fails tests in branch master. That is confusing when people try to learn about history of this repo / how does the repo built from beginning. Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> 于2020年6月13日周六 下午9:06写道： > Hello. > > After the migration from SVN to "gitbox", we noticed that the > _first_ build failed due to 3 unit tests not passing (see e.g. the > Travis report referred to the JIRA report[1]). > > The move to "git" was intended to make it easier for people > willing to revive the [Graph] project. > > IMO, the top priority is now to fix the failing unit tests; > personally, I'm not going to merge any PR before that is > achieved (and please refer to the JIRA identifier[1] in the > corresponding commit/PR). > > Furthermore, I'd suggest that branch "modularization" > becomes the reference branch (in place of "master"[2]), > since the latest batch of work for [Graph] was done on > that one, seemingly leaving "master" behind (TBC by > Amey?). [This path might avoid subsequent work of > merging the fixed (but outdated) "master" into the more > recent branch that is bound to replace it anyway...] > > Thanks, > Gilles > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANDBOX-510 > [2] Even though the names of the maven "modules" should > be changed (for the sake of code layout "standardization" > with other modular components such as "Commons RNG"). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
