Repository navigation
Conversation
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
411215a to
10ec48a
Compare
![webharebot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14281356?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 Auto-Approved: PR author (@unilynx) is an internal organization/repository member.
10ec48a to
7a6829a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 Auto-Approved: PR author (@unilynx) is an internal organization/repository member.
7a6829a to
e2cb147
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 Auto-Approved: PR author (@unilynx) is an internal organization/repository member.
e2cb147 to
8cb1a11
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 Auto-Approved: PR author (@unilynx) is an internal organization/repository member.
8cb1a11 to
e6f0ab7
Compare
|
@blexrob I suggest still commiting this, just on the schedule and not part of normal CI, as a smoke test that the promises made by the devcontainers (being table to run make install en builddocker) are failing once a week is enough, and if it breaks we can look into whether it's actually affecting runkit and downstream escorws |
This branch has not been deployed
2 participants
@WebHare/reviewers point of discussion: can we still do some sort of smoke test (a full CI seems like too much) after wh builddocker/wh make install to somewhat test the final product? right now the only (implicidt) check is 'did not return an error code'