I suspect that the different CI service providers have different operating system setups, which means that it makes sense to build the same Sage revision at multiple CI service providers. That way the likelihood of detecting libraries that are absent from both, Sage source tree and the operating system set of libraries is greater. The revision that passes all CI services should not be declared as "stable" but as "candidate for manual testing". There might be 2 GitHub repositories: one for the CI services for downloading the code and another one, where the "candidate for manual testing" is manually uploaded. The general idea is to save human work hours. After it passes also human testing, the code would/might be moved to the main repository, where the new-comers and Linux distribution package maintainers download their version.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
