3 ms·
But if they are maintaining "no automation" as a rule, CI should not really allowed.
by d0lph 9y ago
But if they are maintaining "no automation" as a rule, CI should not really allowed.
- michaelmior 9y agoThis really depends on how you define automation. CI on GitHub depends on webhooks which is an officially supported part of the API. So there isn't anything unsolicited happening. I just don't think there's any meaningful claim that CI explicitly configured by maintainers using officially supported channels should be lumped in the same category as automated scraping of repositories for creating PRs. Sure, there are many definitions of automation that would include both of these things, but I think it's obvious what GitHub intends in practice.
- d0lph 9y agoThe automation wouldn't be doing anything unsolicited either, since it's only doing things that have been defined in the UI. Perhaps they didn't mean automation per se, but CI is certainly automation, automatic merging, as in not manually merged by a human. Perhaps a better rule would have been, no automation on repos not controlled by yourself.
- movermeyer 9y agoThe actual rule is no "excessive automated bulk activity". https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/ https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/
- d0lph 9y agoThat being the case, seems like OP's bot probably should have been allowed, especially since it seemed like they were only automating their repos.
- movermeyer 9y agoThis bot was exclusively applied to repos that were not mine.
- michaelmior 9y agoIf it's defined in the UI, it doesn't make it unsolicited. I can go to any repository for someone I've never heard of and make a PR as a human. That is still unsolicited. I think the concern is the combination of unsolicited and automated.