> On Nov 18, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Miles Libbey wrote:
>
> There was some mention of not requiring this for documentation (and something
> else?) on the irc channel. Should this apply to only code submissions?
I think those existing exceptions are fine. We should continue to use common
sense a
Cool. Can you host these Jenkins instances on LinkedIn hardware? Or perhaps on
Travis or some other free service? There is unfortunately no way we can safely
do this automated on the RackSpace donated VMs. A possible solution is a manual
process, where a committer can allow a PR to run on our CI
There was some mention of not requiring this for documentation (and something
else?) on the irc channel. Should this apply to only code submissions?
On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 11:08 AM, Thomas Jackson
wrote:
Once this process is in "officially" I can set up some subset of jenkin
Once this process is in "officially" I can set up some subset of jenkins
tests to run on opened/updated PRs. We could (for example) run a clang
check, regression, and tsqa on centos. The goal would not be complete
coverage, but some output to give the reviewer some more confidence it will
work. Thi
> On Nov 17, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:29:17 -0800
> Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we have a proposal that all code commits going forward goes through a step
>> of Github pull requests.
>
> I'm happy with that in principle. Reads like a classic
> On Nov 17, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:29:17 -0800
> Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we have a proposal that all code commits going forward goes through a step
>> of Github pull requests.
>
> I'm happy with that in principle. Reads like a classic
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:29:17 -0800
Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we have a proposal that all code commits going forward goes through a step of
> Github pull requests.
I'm happy with that in principle. Reads like a classic github workflow.
But this reads like a decision that's been made
