New build system problems

David Holmes david.holmes at
Wed Mar 6 00:36:23 UTC 2013

On 6/03/2013 9:44 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at>wrote:
>> On 6/03/2013 9:17 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>>   IMO the right approach is to improve processes so that bad commits don't
>>> cause other developers to lose time.  Once upon a time, I was actually
>>> the tl gatekeeper and I implemented such a system.  Today, I see there's
>>> a tl-gate, but there's close to zero testing between submission to
>>> tl-gate and "promotion" to tl-proper.  In the system I implemented,
>>> there was a full build/test cycle in between.
>> The processes should be there to catch mistakes, not to encourage lack of
>> upfront testing.
> I disagree.  The submitter should be responsible for the "right" amount of
> upfront testing.

Now you are confusing me :) You disagree but say the responsibility is 
on the submitter. Well I certainly agree with that! Our difference is 
the notion of "right". I maintain that for a change to the build 
instructions of a given platform, then a test build on that platform is 
the absolute minimum upfront testing that must be done.

>> If the "gate" provided such functionality it would be like submitting each
>> change via JPRT. While a nice idea it is completely impractical given the
>> resources it would require.
> But ... I actually implemented such a system for tl, back in 2005!

I can't really comment on that. I don't recall ever encountering your 
system and I don't know what builds or tests it did, nor what happened 
to it.


> The current state is a regression.
> Martin

More information about the build-dev mailing list