On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 15:41 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > Running syntax-check in all 5 scenarios isn't buying us anything, > > > as the syntax-check rules don't depend on what is installed in the > > > host. IOW, running syntax-check in 1 scenario is sufficient to get > > > us the coverage we need. > > > > Okay, fair enough. The change still "obfuscates" the Travis > > configuration though, because now you can't just look at a single > > script entry but you have to explode the matrix in your head and > > convince yourself you're covering all bases, so I'm not too happy > > with it. > > I don't think we've got so many different scenarios here that understanding > it is a real problem It's not a massive hurdle, but it's still cognitive load that I'd rather not have to take on. See my first reply for a way of achieving the same result in a much more explicit and easy to grasp manner. > > Moreover, there was a whole thing about just dropping support for > > precise (as Canonical already did) and making our lives easier > > later in the mail, but you snipped it without replying... > > Opps, I'm not in favour of dropping precise, because I think it is useful > to get coverage on older distros. Travis is what I use for testing complex > patch series before submission, so I like it to have a useful mix of vintage > OSs, not only the very latest that is largely the same as what I build on > locally already. Support for precise is going to be dropped by Travis in two months either way: https://blog.travis-ci.com/2017-08-31-trusty-as-default-status So we can keep it around for the time being if you want, but we're going to have this very same conversation again pretty soon :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
