Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Roberto Tyley <roberto.tyley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Given this, enabling Travis CI for git/git seems pretty low risk, >> are there any strong objections to it happening? > > I still don't see a reason why git/git needs to be the one that is > used, when somebody > so interested (and I seem to see very many of them in the thread) can > sacrifice his or > her own fork and enable it him or herself. To state it a bit differently. If somebody says "I've been maintaining a clone of git/git with Travis webhooks enabled and as the result caught this many glitches during the past two months without any ill side effect. Here are the patches to fix them, and by the way, the first patch in this series is not a fix but the configuration to tell Travis how to run tests so that other people can enable it on _their_ own fork before they send their own series to the mailing list." in the cover letter of a patch series, I would appreciate such a series greatly and would not mind carrying one extra yml file in the tree at all. But that is not what I am seeing in this thread at all. I am tired of hearing people telling others to help them by doing more without doing the grunt work themselves. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html