Qrux wrote: > On Mar 1, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> Qrux wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure why there's so much opposition to it. >> There isn't opposition to testing, but who is going to do all the >> testing needed? > > If we're asking buy questions, we'd also have to include some where > and how questions...Some things off the top of my head: > > 1) Does LFS/BLFS have dedicated machines that just constantly build > LFS?
No. > 2) Can that be used to host a continuous build site (or at least one > triggered by commits...)? No, we've never set that up. It's a daily cron script. Occasionally I do 'specials'. For instance today I did a special for BLFS because the server was down last night for maintenance. > 3) Commit-triggered build would require something that pulls the > scripts out of the book pages and assembles them in a build-able > format. Does that exist? Yes, we have a script that downloads the xml and rebuilds the book and puts it into place. There is one for LFS and one for BLFS. > OTOH, who's responsibility is it when there are changes of this > magnitude? LFS/BLFS is a few volunteers that do it because we want to contribute knowledge about how the Linux kernel, Gnu programs, and various other open source packages fit together. We want the user to be in control, if desired, and not have some large organization, commercial or otherwise, make the decisions. Your distro, your rules. Making big changes is done generally by consensus by the editors. Smaller changes, the individual editors just do. If an issue arises, then it gets fixed after discussion and agreement. > It just seems that if there's no somewhat-automated-testing > infrastructure, then it's easy to say: "Hey--that's not my problem. > It's not like anything else around here gets tested like that, so why > should I?" Editors do test their changes. Sometimes they make mistakes, but they get fixed fairly quickly when they are pointed out. > I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I don't think I'm doing > anything more (or less) than taking the temperature for testing, and > more than a little surprised that the few times it's come up, there > seems to be...I don't know what else to call it...maybe "hesitation." > And, that "hesitation" makes it seem like it would be not worth > tackling...Which just leaves big changes between a rock and a hard > place. No, not really. It's open source. Anyone can fork an alternate version. We are even willing to let those who would like to do it have a branch in svn to experiment and test as much as they'd like. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
