On 9/6/2012 12:26 AM, Don Clugston wrote: > On 4 September 2012 19:43, Brad Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hrm.. there's one important difference between the way this api is designed >> and the way the auto-tester tests the pull >> requests. The api tags a specific sha, which would be the tip of the pull >> requests revision history. That's fine if >> the merge to master is purely a fast-forward merge (ie, the pull request is >> based on the tip of the master tree and is >> purely additive). However, if the pull request is NOT based off the tip of >> the tree, then a merge is involved and the >> auto-tester is testing the result of that merge, NOT the pull request >> pre-merge. >> >> I can go ahead and apply the status to the pull requests tip sha, but it'll >> be a little misleading in that it's entirely >> possible that the pull request builds w/o a merge to master but doesn't >> with. Likely to be a fairly rare occurrence, >> but worth noting. > > It's not rare at all, I've seen it very many times.
Sorry, I was excluding the case where it's not mergable. There's a lot of cases where it builds w/in just the pull request, but isn't mergeable due to conflicting changes. I think that case is fine to report failure for, since it requires attention before the pull request is useful. Are you aware of a significant number that _do_ merge but then fail to build/test post-merge but succeed w/o a merge? _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
