On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Flaper87 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'd like to share some thoughts with regard to our current test and approval > process. Let me break this thoughts into 2 separate sections: > > 1. Testing: > > Currently, all patches are being tested after they are approved. However, I > think it would be of great benefit for contributors - and reviewers - to test > patches before and after they're approved. Testing the patches before > approval will allow folks proposing patches - although they're expected to > test the patches before submitting them - and reviewers to know that the > patch is indeed mergeable. Furthermore, it will help spotting corner cases, > regressions that would benefit from a good discussion while the PR is hot. > > I think we don't need to run all jobs, perhaps just Windows, OSx and Linux > should be enough for a first test phase. It would also be nice to run lint > checks, stability checks etc. IIRC, GH's API should allow us to notify this > checks failures. >
This is a pretty bad idea, allowing *arbitrary unreviewed anything* to run on the buildbots. All it needs to do is remove the contents of its home directory to put the builder out of commission, afaik. It'd definitely be nice to have it run tidy etc first, but there needs to be a check tidy or any of its deps. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
