Re: [RT] Improving on gump

[Stefano Mazzocchi]

Stefan Bodewig wrote:

sorry for the delay, I'm so behind my email it hurts! Crete was wonderful though ;-)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[nightly build like proposal]

 get latest B
 build it
 if successful {
   get latest A
   build it against latest B
   if successful {
      // do nothing since everything is cool
   } else {
      send email to A (
        with results from A build
      )

maybe copy B here?

sure

   }
 } else {

send email to A with list of broken dependencies?

makes sense

   get B that A says it depends on (out of timestamp)
   build it

against which versions of B's dependencies? dated or latest?

uh, recursion, gosh, didn't think about that. What would you suggest?

   if successful {
      get latest A
      build it against dependent B
      if successful {
         send email to B (
           with the results from latest B built
         )

B should have received a mail when we tried to build B already.

very true, I guess I need to reconsider this algorithm to make it fully recursive.

      } else {
         send email to A (
            with results from A built
            with list of broken dependencies
         )
   } else {
      send email to A copying B (
         with results to targetted build
      )

why do you want to copy B if A fails to build against the very same
version of B A claims to be compatible to?

you are right, I thought it might have been a B problem, but i think it would generate too much noise. +1 to remove copying B

   }
 }

It concerns me that people are very silent about this. Did I go to far?

--
Stefano.

smime.p7s

Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature