On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 15:41 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
Running syntax-check in all 5 scenarios isn't buying us anything, as the syntax-check rules don't depend on what is installed in the host. IOW, running syntax-check in 1 scenario is sufficient to get us the coverage we need.
Okay, fair enough. The change still "obfuscates" the Travis configuration though, because now you can't just look at a single script entry but you have to explode the matrix in your head and convince yourself you're covering all bases, so I'm not too happy with it.
I don't think we've got so many different scenarios here that understanding it is a real problem
It's not a massive hurdle, but it's still cognitive load that I'd rather not have to take on. See my first reply for a way of achieving the same result in a much more explicit and easy to grasp manner.
Moreover, there was a whole thing about just dropping support for precise (as Canonical already did) and making our lives easier later in the mail, but you snipped it without replying...
Opps, I'm not in favour of dropping precise, because I think it is useful to get coverage on older distros. Travis is what I use for testing complex patch series before submission, so I like it to have a useful mix of vintage OSs, not only the very latest that is largely the same as what I build on locally already.
Support for precise is going to be dropped by Travis in two months either way: https://blog.travis-ci.com/2017-08-31-trusty-as-default-status So we can keep it around for the time being if you want, but we're going to have this very same conversation again pretty soon :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization