Given that Canary builds are intended as a development aide, publication of a binary for one platform should not be hinged on whether the Canary successfully builds for all platforms.
In addition, I would prefer we don't start tying the publication of the Tizen Crosswalk binary to the build of an optional extension module, unless t-e-c is rolled in as part of a single crosswalk RPM for Tizen. James On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Raphael Kubo da Costa < [email protected]> wrote: > Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho <[email protected]> writes: > > > Hi Raphael, > > > > I don't think we need to tie it with Crosswalk version (and possibly > > never). The C API t-e-c is built on (Crosswalk Extension C API) is > > pretty stable, so they are mostly independent. > > > > I rather keep t-e-c in "rolling release" mode for a while longer (so > > incrementing minor and keeping 0 as major) is fine by me. At some > > point (maybe the same time we do Crosswalk 3 branch) we can branch de > > t-e-c to 1 and make it folow the same approach as Crosswalk (wrt to > > branches and such). > > > > What do you think? > > Fine for me. > > On the release builds side, it would mean t-e-c is going to be built > every day after crosswalk-tizen itself is built on the canary VM, and a > build will only succeed (ie. the binaries will be copied to 01.org and > the version numbers will be incremented) if and only if android-x86, > tizen and t-e-c all build correctly. > > And every day the minor version will be monotonically increased if the > build succeeds. > _______________________________________________ > Crosswalk-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev >
_______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
