Hey All, As an aside to this - we're looking to build a distributed build farm that will enable folks to test changes on at least the common platforms. If you want to help out (especially if you have Build/Jenkins/CI/Git/Mercurial expertise) then please drop me a note off-list.
Cheers, Martijn On 6 March 2013 01:00, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 6/03/2013 10:52 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:36 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com >> <mailto:david.holmes@oracle.**com <david.hol...@oracle.com>>> wrote: >> >> >> I disagree. The submitter should be responsible for the "right" >> amount of >> upfront testing. >> >> >> Now you are confusing me :) You disagree but say the responsibility >> is on the submitter. Well I certainly agree with that! Our >> difference is the notion of "right". I maintain that for a change to >> the build instructions of a given platform, then a test build on >> that platform is the absolute minimum upfront testing that must be >> done. >> >> >> The responsibility is on the submitter to be "responsible". But there's >> a limit to the certainty of correctness you can expect from the >> submitter. The integration process (including gatekeepers) needs to >> help out as well. >> If: >> - erroneous commits only cause lost work for the submitter and the >> gatekeeper >> - erroneous commits can be trivially rolled back >> - testing is highly automated >> then we can have a more productive and pleasant developer experience for >> everyone. >> > > None of these premises hold with the current system. You can lament or > debate that all you like but the facts remain. So in the current system it > is not acceptable, in my opinion, to push a change that includes build > instructions for platform X without a build of platform X having been > tested. So if a submitter can't do that test themselves then they need to > collaborate with someone who can. > > David > > >
