<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Eric Engestrom <<a href="mailto:eric.engestrom@intel.com" target="_blank">eric.engestrom@intel.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Friday, 2018-06-08 09:06:06 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Eric Engestrom <<a href="mailto:eric.engestrom@intel.com">eric.engestrom@intel.com</a>> > wrote: > > > Now that we're using GitLab, let's take advantage of the "landing page" > > README feature with some minimal information, mostly to point people to > > the right resources. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <<a href="mailto:eric.engestrom@intel.com">eric.engestrom@intel.com</a>> > > --- > > README.rst | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 README.rst > > > > diff --git a/README.rst b/README.rst > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000000000000..6a89b129661a949351e7 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/README.rst > > @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ > > +`Mesa <<a href="https://mesa3d.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mesa3d.org</a>>`_ - The 3D Graphics Library > > +====================================================== > > + > > + > > +Source > > +------ > > + > > +This repository lives at <a href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa</a>. > > +Other repositories are likely forks, and code found there is not > > supported. > > + > > + > > +Project health > > +-------------- > > + > > +Travis: > > + > > +.. image:: <a href="https://travis-ci.org/mesa3d/mesa.svg?branch=master" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://travis-ci.org/mesa3d/mesa.svg?branch=master</a> > > + :target: <a href="https://travis-ci.org/mesa3d/mesa" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://travis-ci.org/mesa3d/mesa</a> > > + > > +Appveyor: > > + > > +.. image:: <a href="https://img.shields.io/appveyor/ci/mesa3d/mesa.svg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://img.shields.io/appveyor/ci/mesa3d/mesa.svg</a> > > + :target: <a href="https://ci.appveyor.com/project/mesa3d/mesa" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://ci.appveyor.com/project/mesa3d/mesa</a> > > + > > +Coverity: > > + > > +.. image:: <a href="https://scan.coverity.com/projects/139/badge.svg?flat=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://scan.coverity.com/projects/139/badge.svg?flat=1</a> > > + :target: <a href="https://scan.coverity.com/projects/mesa" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://scan.coverity.com/projects/mesa</a> > > > > I'm going to Parrot Mark and say that build tests and coverity warning > levels are not good metrics of project health. They're mildly useful > development tools and that is all. We don't want to send the message that > the project is healthy and/or the patches are good if the pass coverity and > build. </div></div>Fair enough, but I'd like to keep them there, as I aimed them at devs, for them to actually notice when the build is broken on some platform/compiler/configuration instead of having to manually go to the websites and check (which not many devs do). Do you have a suggestion for a better section title? How about "CI status" ? </blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> </div><div class="gmail_extra">How about "Public CI tools" with a comment saying that other non-public CI systems exist which actually test hardware. </div></div>