On Wed, 23 May 2018 07:03:07 +0100 Stefan Schmidt
said:
> Hello.
>
> On 17.05.2018 18:49, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
> > I think there is no need to ever build /dev/ branches since these can (and
> > sometimes should) be knowingly pushed even when they don't build. Only
> > feature/, stable, and m
Hello.
On 17.05.2018 18:49, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
> I think there is no need to ever build /dev/ branches since these can (and
> sometimes should) be knowingly pushed even when they don't build. Only
> feature/, stable, and master branches should ever be involved with CI.
I disagree on this.
On Thu, 17 May 2018 13:49:59 -0400
Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
> I think there is no need to ever build /dev/ branches since these can
> (and sometimes should) be knowingly pushed even when they don't
> build. Only feature/, stable, and master branches should ever be
> involved with CI.
>
> Is ther
I think there is no need to ever build /dev/ branches since these can (and
sometimes should) be knowingly pushed even when they don't build. Only
feature/, stable, and master branches should ever be involved with CI.
Is there a way to limit this?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:54 AM Stefan Schmidt
wr
Hello.
During today's IRC meeting the question came up why we do not have
TravisCI build getting reported to the channel.
When I initially wanted to do this I stopped when I saw that it will
report results from all branches, not only master. There seem to be no
way to configure the branches it sh