Well that they fail and that they take minutes to run isn't a bad thing; what is bad is that broken things end up on master.
Think of it this way: Any time the build is broken, everyone working on the project is interrupted. If you have 10 people working on the codebase and the build is broken for an hour, that's a whole workday and then some wasted.
You could start a grassroots movement - create a pre-push or pre-commit hook that runs tests before it ends up on the remote. Don't worry about the tests taking minutes to run, if you're waiting on that several times a day you're probably publishing too many small changes over the course of a day.
> Well that they fail and that they take minutes to run isn't a bad thing; what is bad is that broken things end up on master.
You don't understand; they are continually broken on master.
Furthermore, you assume that we only commit to master after reviews etc have been done. This isn't the case. Commits, even intermittent commits, are pushed to master, and reviewed from there.
You have to make the people love you. Then they will follow your good advice joyfully. In fact they'll follow your bad advice just as much, so be careful you don't get promoted to VP.
Think of it this way: Any time the build is broken, everyone working on the project is interrupted. If you have 10 people working on the codebase and the build is broken for an hour, that's a whole workday and then some wasted.
You could start a grassroots movement - create a pre-push or pre-commit hook that runs tests before it ends up on the remote. Don't worry about the tests taking minutes to run, if you're waiting on that several times a day you're probably publishing too many small changes over the course of a day.