Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] Add Travis CI support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> On 06 Nov 2015, at 14:36, Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Well, I partly agree. Right now the running time is ~20 min (that means less than your 30min target!). After ~10min you even have all Linux results, Mac takes a bit longer. Travis shows you 2h because that is the time that would be required if all builds where run one after another (we run builds in parallel).
> 
> Are you sure about than? I mean, what sense does it make to show how
> long it *would* have taken *if* the builds were running serially? I
> can see that the longest of the jobs took 21 minutes, which is ok. But
> that does not mean that all jobs completed in within 21 minutes. It
> could be that not all jobs started at (about) the same time due to a
> lack of resources, and that the last job did not compete before the 2
> hours were over because it only started to run 1 hours and 40 minutes
> befor ethe first job was started.
I am fairly certain about this. 

See, here is the first configuration and the first test case of a job:
https://travis-ci.org/larsxschneider/git/jobs/89598195
[08:21:06] t0002-gitfile.sh 

Here is the last configuration and the last test case of the same job:
[08:51:22] t9903-bash-prompt.sh

~30 min for all 8 configurations. You can enable Travis CI for you GitHub account and try it easily yourself :-)

> 
>> That being said, I see your point of to avoiding to burn Travis CI resources meaningless. If I am not mistaken then you can configure Travis in a way that it runs different configurations for different branches. E.g. I would like to run all 8 configurations on maint, master, next and maybe pu. All other branches on peoples own forks should be fine with the default Linux build (~10min).
>> 
>> What do you think?
> 
> I think running different configuration per branch makes sense, yes.
If the list decides to accept this patch. Do you think that would be a necessary requirement for the first iteration?

Thanks,
Lars--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]