Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Terminate Greenkeeper #205

Closed
daviddias opened this issue Nov 28, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Terminate Greenkeeper #205

daviddias opened this issue Nov 28, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@daviddias
Copy link
Member

I'm going to go directly to the arguments why I believe (and others do too) terminate the Greenkeeper subscription in our repos:

  • destroys our Travis-CI execution pool. I've literally waited for more than an hour just to see travis starting to run some tests, this affects both js-ipfs and go-ipfs development as both use the same travis pool for being in the same work
  • create a lot of noise in github notifications
  • create a lot of noise in the waffle board - I need to spend a ton of time just resolving Greenkeeper stuff.
  • I don't believe we have had a single issue where Greenkeeper has saved us from some issue.
@Kubuxu
Copy link
Member

Kubuxu commented Nov 28, 2016

I know that it is quite valuable for some JS developers. Is there some less "noisy" alternative or separate webui for greenkeeper like app?

@RichardLitt
Copy link
Member

I don't believe we have had a single issue where Greenkeeper has saved us from some issue.

How would you know? That's assuming that there would be a breaking issue between the time you commit and the Greenkeeper's PR is merged, right?

You could always ignore it more. We could also build a bot to automatically remove it's PRs, possible.

@victorb
Copy link
Member

victorb commented Nov 28, 2016

We should continue this discussion in the issue that is already open: #197

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants