Robinson Tryon wrote:
3) Consistent filenames across TB (hint to Thorsten ;) ) Not needed if one
build per OS is enough (see point 1)
Given that we have a community of tinderboxes, I don't see a reason
against standardized names. If someone doesn't want to follow the
particular naming convention, it's fine for them to run an unlisted
tinderbox...
Sure. The only problem with tb@42 is that I run builbot/tb, and have
not yet managed to free the cycles to hunt down where that install set
name comes from. Any input appreciated. ;)
4) Text file with details associated with each installer (since the
executables have NO reference to the TB that produced them). Again, not
needed if one build per OS is enough (see point 1)
So shove info in regarding who built what and when?
Bjoern -- That should be relatively easy, right? (also: what do you
think of the idea? :-)
Makes sense, again needs someone to implement it for buildbot/tb.
Sidenote: I would say that having a 4.2 daily build is currently more
important than a Master build (since 4.3 is only planned for code freeze in
May...)
Well, we do need master builds for general QA testing, as well as for
the bibisect repos, so I think that Master builds are often the most
useful to us in the long term. That being said, I would definitely
like daily builds for our stable branches; I believe that it's doable
for us to have both.
And easily so. That's why I opted for Norbert's buildbot/tb, you can
have it build any number of branches and configurations in a
round-robin fashion.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
