On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:09:59PM +0300, Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote: > > While this is technically possible, it goes in the opposite direction of > > what we've been doing so far and what we've agreed upon: > When requirements for the automated Canary build system were originally discussed, it was indicated that if the build for a platform fails, that platform won't have a Canary release that day. If that changed, I wasn't aware of it. it's just > > somewhat upsetting to change the rules in the middle of the game (and it > > wouldn't be the first time). > > > > So if this is to be done, I would like everyone to really read this > > thread and agree once and for all. > > OK. I want to take my support for this change back. I think for now > it's just fine to keep the "all or nothing" mode. While I agree in the > long run this is good, I don't think this is needed in the short-term > at all, especially if it will be too much work. > It shouldn't block our moving forward, however it is something that needs to be fixed. The order in which things are fixed is dependent on priorities. James, do you think this change is necessary? (or we misread you > completely?) > As you indicated, short-term, not pressing. James > > > Cheers, > Caio > _______________________________________________ > 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
