On 3/3/22 5:40 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 05:11:52PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 4:49 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>>> Folks (in no way pointing a finger at Jim who just did merging duty), it
>>> is not hard to test your backport proposals, either in an SVN branch or
>>> a github PR if you want better testing coverage before you submit for
>>> review.
>>
>> A quick question on this. If I branch 2.4.x
>>
>> 1. Travis will run at all (because their is a .travis.yml in that branch)?
>
> Yup, Travis will definitely run for all branches, e.g. it works for the
> candidate-2.4.x branches:
>
> https://app.travis-ci.com/github/apache/httpd/branches
>
>> 2. But the conditions in .travis.yml will likely not cause travis to run the
>> same tests as for 2.4.x, but likely the trunk ones,
>> correct? Hence we need adjusted conditions in .travis.yml and we need to
>> define some kind of naming rules for branches from
>> trunk and 2.4.x to ensure that the correct tests and builds are running?
>
> Oh, good question. I'm not sure how the "branch" variable appears in an
> arbitrary branch but it's possible we'd need to tweak the conditions
> again, yes. If we used a naming rule of "branches/2.4.x-*" for 2.4.x
> backports would that be reasonable? This is most common from examples
Sounds reasonable, but given that for candidates we use candidate-2.4.x we
should change this to 2.4.x-candidate if we set a
naming convention of branches/2.4.x-*.
Regards
Rüdiger
