> > I'll put my hand up for doing the Windows build as well (the x64
> > buildbot has all the necessary bits and pieces installed). I
> > know some HP people that I could rope in to install the resulting
> > IA64 build and run rt.bat.
> Notice that we both look for somebody to build the next 2.6/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I am planning to offer a single file patch for 2.3 and 2.4. As
far as
one more 2.5 release, I don't think there's going to be many
changes
to the 2.5 branch between now and 2.6/3.0 final - alth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 13, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le mercredi 13 août 2008 à 18:33 -0400, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
Or to adopt tools that help improve reliability. I'm not convinced
that the buildbots really do that. A PQM-style approach, while mo
>> Because there won't typically be sufficient testing and release
>> infrastructure to allow arbitrary bug fixes to be committed on the
>> branch. The buildbots are turned off, and nobody tests the release
>> candidate, no Windows binaries are provided - thus, chances are very
>> high that a bug f
> PQM serializes changesets so that they must apply cleanly with no
> conflicts, and pass the entire test suite.
What platform would it run the test suite on? Presumably the same one
I tested on before I submitted the patch :-).
I think this works if you're a Linux development shop, but perhaps
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
>> An alternative would be to keep all infrastructure up and running,
>> but that is infeasible.
>
> Or to adopt tools that help improve reliability. I'm not convinced that the
> buildbots really do that. A PQM-style
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Aug 13, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> Le mercredi 13 août 2008 à 18:33 -0400, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
>>>
>>> Or to adopt tools that help improve reliabili
Le mercredi 13 août 2008 à 18:33 -0400, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
> Or to adopt tools that help improve reliability. I'm not convinced
> that the buildbots really do that. A PQM-style approach, while more
> of a pain for developers because of the serialized landings, would
> definitely impro
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, another option is to flesh out ``make check`` such that it runs
> more sanity checks and makes sure the entire test suite is run and
> passed before a commit is done, basically doing what you are
> suggesting, but on a
Barry Warsaw wrote:
PQM = Patch Queue Manager
Basically, it's a robot that controls commits to the trunk. Nothing
lands in the trunk without getting through PQM first. PQM serializes
changesets so that they must apply cleanly with no conflicts, and pass
the entire test suite. There could b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Because there won't typically be sufficient testing and release
infrastructure to allow arbitrary bug fixes to be committed on the
branch. The buildbots are turned off, and nobody tests the release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
PQM serializes changesets so that they must apply cleanly with no
conflicts, and pass the entire test suite.
What platform would it run the test suite on? Presumably the same one
I tested on before
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>> PQM = Patch Queue Manager
>>
>> Basically, it's a robot that controls commits to the trunk. Nothing lands
>> in the trunk without getting through PQM first. PQM serializes changesets
>> so tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 13, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
PQM = Patch Queue Manager
Basically, it's a robot that controls commits to the trunk.
Nothing lands in the trunk without getting through PQM first. PQM
serializes change
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 13, 2008, at 10:49 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
If any of the set of conditions fail, the changeset does not land.
This
means that the trunk is always in a releasable state, and we avoid
the
problems I run into all the time now, where we have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 14, 2008, at 12:16 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I don't have experience with PQM or something like it, but I suspect
it doesn't scale, and the buildbots are a better approach, because
they handle multiple platforms.
Just quickly because I've
> That's true of a certain class of bugs, probably mostly in the C code.
> I think potential security bugs in Python code will be closer to
> "regular" bug fixes.
While that may be true, I think that are much more infrequent, because
many attack paths (such as memory overwrites leading to remote
> As long as we're touting tools or processes that we have experience
> with, Google uses a combination of tools. One tool is similar to the
> buildbots, running tests *after* stuff has been checked in. A feature
> that buildbot is missing is that it tries to figure which checkin is
> responsible f
18 matches
Mail list logo
