I agree with Salikh -- the wiki will never keep up if you expect such frequent manual updates. That's a job for the test results' collator.
Regards, Tim Salikh Zakirov wrote: > 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 out-of-date 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. > > > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
