Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:33:43 +0300, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
<tomas.l.ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
So what about the following counterargument: "even if nightly builds
were made available, how can we be sure that enough people are using
them to sufficiently test them?" OK, sure, if not many people are
using the nightly builds, then there wouldn't be much benefit. But it
does seem to work out fine for a lot of projects. And with a proper
SCM set up which you commit to daily, there's virtually no work on
your part. You just commit, and everyone else can download and
compile.
I believe that people downloading half-baked works in progress and then
finding problems I already know about and am fixing is probably not more
productive.
Some of us might actually look at your changes.
1) We get a forewarning for changes that might affect LDC/GDC/D.NET etc.
2) We can comment on changes. Ideally there would be a mailing list
with each commit. This makes discussion of specific changes much
easier.
3) You get feedback on the code.
I'm not sure how many people have access to your code, or if you even
use a SCM repository locally.
As an extra bonus you could release your internal test suite as well.
This would be useful for projects like LDC, as a compliment to
DStress. Do you use Dstress?
The testing process of DMD could be much less opaque in general.
-Tomas
*Highly* agree!
2nded
