Morozova, Nadezhda wrote: > My two cents... > >>> I do not understand the lifecycle of this page. If I report today > that >> my >>> platform works OK, but the next commit brokes it, who will update the >> page? >> >> IMHO if the next commit breakes the work-ok-platform and if you notice >> it, why not to update the wiki page? Or you can let me know about this >> bug and I'll make the update:) > Do you think we can add a note with the revision number? This way, you > at least know that the code of XXXX revision worked ok/failed on this > platform. Because such tests are done systematically, changing revisions > would not take much time to update.
-1 I think this is a conceptually incorrect approach to try to keep a relatively slowly changing wiki page up-to-date with fast-paced commits. I believe this approach is doomed, and the status page is going to get out-of-date while it is being edited. I would suggest the following "fix" to the approach: * Reserve the "supported platforms" notion for the developer releases or snapshots, and do not use the term with respect to SVN trunk * Relate the list of "supported platforms" with the release management process, and describe the status of particular snapshots, and not SVN trunk in general.
