Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

Hello, The discussion on smoking and branching is driven by the need to maintain quality across a wide range of compilers and "target"(1) machines. I would add a couple of points. 0. When working through the review process the tool I wanted the most was a simple way to test cross-platform/co

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On Friday 30 March 2007 09:36, Nicholas Clark wrote: > An alternative is to have C be an alias, either to C devtest> by default, and a smaller C (or somesuch) when the > source tree is an official release. Having the source tree know when it's > an official release (perhaps by including or not inc

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:58:19AM -0700, Allison Randal wrote: > I concur that the user shouldn't get failing tests for things like > whitespace at the end of lines. More importantly, the user shouldn't be > wasting time running tests for coding standards and documentation. How > about a 'make

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

Will Coleda wrote: So lets document what we need. Right now 'make smoke' generates an HTML report which is uploaded to the smoke server. Talk has happened in the past about making this more DB like instead of rendered output, but my concern is for the user visible features we're lacking. Perh

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

jerry gay wrote: Should we even require all of these tests to be ran by default? These tests should never fail for a user compiling a release version of parrot, so should they need to test them? They're good for developers, but only developers. until we stop actively developing major subsyst

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On 3/29/07, Joshua Isom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:20 PM, jerry gay wrote: > On 3/29/07, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > and i'm not interested in testing every >> revision, >> > when so many might be coding standards >> >> Why are people ev

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:20 PM, jerry gay wrote: On 3/29/07, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > and i'm not interested in testing every revision, > when so many might be coding standards Why are people even checking things in that fail coding standards? because not a

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On Thursday 29 March 2007 23:03, Joshua Isom wrote: > One other thing I've noticed is that todo tests sometimes become > forgotten tests.  And since they're sometimes platform specific, they > don't get fixed for that platform because feature x doesn't have the > code support.  Other than doing a

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On Mar 29, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Will Coleda wrote: On Mar 27, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Allison Randal wrote: but, we need better smoke tools So lets document what we need. Right now 'make smoke' generates an HTML report which is uploaded to the smoke server. Talk has happened in

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On Mar 27, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Allison Randal wrote: but, we need better smoke tools So lets document what we need. Right now 'make smoke' generates an HTML report which is uploaded to the smoke server. Talk has happened in the past about making this more DB like instead

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

Eric Hanchrow wrote: Here's the relevant bits from my config file: [miscellany] ### Set enable-auto-props to 'yes' to enable automatic properties ### for 'svn add' and 'svn import', it defaults to 'no'. ### Automatic properties are defined in the section 'auto-props'. enable-

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

Eric Hanchrow wrote: Here's the relevant bits from my config file: [miscellany] ### Set enable-auto-props to 'yes' to enable automatic properties ### for 'svn add' and 'svn import', it defaults to 'no'. ### Automatic properties are defined in the section 'auto-props'. enable-

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

> "chromatic" == chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: chromatic> The line-ending coding standards tests can be a problem chromatic> in some cases, where Windows developers add new files chromatic> with their native format and forget to set the chromatic> svn:eol-style=native

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

> > and i'm not interested in testing every revision, > > when so many might be coding standards > Why are people even checking things in that fail coding standards? The line-ending coding standards tests can be a problem in some cases, where Windows developers add new files with t

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On 3/29/07, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > and i'm not interested in testing every revision, > when so many might be coding standards Why are people even checking things in that fail coding standards? because not all coding standard tests are run with 'make test'

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On Thursday 29 March 2007 13:05, Nicholas Clark wrote: > I don't think that the stable/development spit in Perl 5 land is broken. > There is a problem that there aren't enough people with good enough > knowledge to be committers, and in particular to want to review and apply > patches supplied by

Re: IRC discussion of smoking and branching

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:45:57PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote: > It works OK if everyone agrees that one ( or a very > few) access the maintanence branch > How many branches are we talking about 1,2 or 10 ? >Steve_p, I think Nicholas might disagree that

IRC discussion of smoking and branching

A discussion of draft document , with some side threads edited out. See for the full text. ... ok. This is basica