Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:27 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> I had an impression that it was claimed that without this, the other >>> weatherbaloon for "for (type var=..." would not fly in some of the >>> jobs we have at CI? >> >> It wouldn't if we have a CI job that tests with gcc < 5 but the last >> version of that job died with travis-ci.org > > I was wondering how Dscho's test was not failing, and that is an > easy answer to that question ;-) > > If we wanted to resurrect that CI job, we can always add it in the > CI definition anyway, so I am OK with that, too. But if we were to do so, perhaps we'd want something like what I gave at https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqy25lwa86.fsf@gitster.g/ in its place to avoid confusing people. Let me update that topic before dropping the one under discussion.
