From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: [BUG] ob-sql.el: probably an extra paren Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 02:46:20 +0200 Message-ID: <87txnkxz1r.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <16047.1363748067@alphaville> <86vc8mtfcx.fsf@somewhere.org> <87fvzqnpfd.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87fvzozx88.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87ehf84osd.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87fvznzy0t.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45335) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UOHL0-00081w-It for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:50:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UOHKu-0002pU-Ph for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:50:34 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]:63785) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UOHKu-0002pD-Jq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:50:28 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hm11so2328515wib.3 for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:50:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Achim Gratz's message of "Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:59:38 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Cc: Jason Dunsmore , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi, Achim Gratz writes: > Hudson. However, I don't think that a CI framework is what we need or > want. As I said, simply running the tests (preferrably with two different > versions of Emacs) should be enough for now. Unless we hear from Jason if > he thinks the server can take the extra load its a moot point to discuss > details, but I think this can be done in one of the Git hooks (much like > Worg triggers publishing). Yagnesh Raghava Yakkala writes: > About hudson/jenkins (any other CI), If we have resources on the server, I > would say we should go for it. That will remove Bastien's concern of slowing > down development because of running tests by hand. I'm copying Jason -- the idea is to run tests on the servers via a Git hook, the same way that a Git hook publishes Worg. If the tests fail, the committer would get a warning and the commit would be discarded. Jason, do you think it's feasible? Enough? I guess hudson/travis is really too much for our needs. Thanks, -- Bastien