On 03/25/2010 07:40 PM, Ziller Eike (Nokia-D-Qt/Berlin) wrote: > > Especially regarding Qt Creator's Qml support, a CI system for Qt Creator > would be mostly pointless. > Unless it produced a point of stability, say a branch in both qt and creator called qtcreator_stable, that's had minimal build and run testing, it's a known quality that people can understand, currently that's not even available, and you have to rewind one or both until you get something that works. (something that's both difficult and time consuming). > Because most of the time when Qt Creator builds break in Qml support, it is > because of changes in Qt/QML that don't yet have corresponding changes in Qt > Creator. > We already have to handle the problem that "synchronized changes" in Qt and > Qt Creator first need the change in Qt/mainline, and only then the > corresponding change in Qt Creator can be pushed. That wouldn't get better > with yet another process in between for the Qt Creator changes. > Also the current CI system is barely able to handle Qt at the moment, > resources-wise (that will hopefully be mended, but takes time). > > We have nighlty builds btw, and there is a (admittedly slow) progress ongoing > to move that to pulse, so we'll hopefully profit from the infrastructure > there in the longer run. > > > Can I help this somehow? Rohan's just around the corner, so I can pester him in person if it's that that's needed.
-- Bill King, Software Engineer Qt Development Frameworks, Nokia Pty Ltd Brisbane Office _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@trolltech.com http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
