> On 06 Nov 2015, at 14:57, Sebastian Schuberth <sschube...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> I think running different configuration per branch makes sense, yes. >> >> If the list decides to accept this patch. Do you think that would be a >> necessary requirement for the first iteration? > > No. I think this could be addressed later as an improvements. To me > it's more important to finally get *some* sane Travis CI configuration > in. True. However, as I stated in my v4 cover letter the Travis CI integration is not yet perfect. I am constantly running builds to find flaky tests. Eg. here is one of them in git-p4 area that I will tackle next: https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/89603763/log.txt
I also see a weird "prove Tests our of sequence" error one in a while: https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/89603770/log.txt Does anyone have an idea what could cause this? Thanks, Lars -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
