Hi Sam,
On Friday, 2 September 2016 10:01:14 AM AEST Sam Hartman wrote:
> If a job includes a cache, then it appears that the initial working
> directory is some directory inside the cache, *not* the top of the
> project directory.
This problem could be related to #838012 that was fixed in 1.5.3
On Saturday, 3 September 2016 6:43:05 AM AEST Sam Hartman wrote:
> ...but I'm really
> frustrated when I am told to "discuss with upstream."
Too bad. Debian bug tracker is not a substitute to upstream one.
If you had a chance to check upstream bug reports there are chances you could
have found mo
> "Dmitry" == Dmitry Smirnov writes:
Dmitry> On Friday, 2 September 2016 10:01:14 AM AEST Sam Hartman wrote:
>> If a job includes a cache, then it appears that the initial
>> working directory is some directory inside the cache, *not* the
>> top of the project directory.
On Friday, 2 September 2016 10:01:14 AM AEST Sam Hartman wrote:
> If a job includes a cache, then it appears that the initial working
> directory is some directory inside the cache, *not* the top of the
> project directory.
Please discuss upstream. From the description of the problem I'd say it i
package: gitlab-ci-multi-runner
version: 1.4.2+dfsg-1
severity: important
Hi.
If a job includes a cache, then it appears that the initial working
directory is some directory inside the cache, *not* the top of the
project directory.
In trying to diagnose build failures I produced the following jo
5 matches
Mail list logo
