New build system problems
martijnverburg at gmail.com
Wed Mar 6 09:11:06 UTC 2013
As an aside to this - we're looking to build a distributed build farm that
will enable folks to test changes on at least the common platforms. If you
want to help out (especially if you have Build/Jenkins/CI/Git/Mercurial
expertise) then please drop me a note off-list.
On 6 March 2013 01:00, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 6/03/2013 10:52 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:36 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com
>> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.**com <david.holmes at oracle.com>>> wrote:
>> 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
>> The responsibility is on the submitter to be "responsible". But there's
>> a limit to the certainty of correctness you can expect from the
>> submitter. The integration process (including gatekeepers) needs to
>> help out as well.
>> - erroneous commits only cause lost work for the submitter and the
>> - erroneous commits can be trivially rolled back
>> - testing is highly automated
>> then we can have a more productive and pleasant developer experience for
> None of these premises hold with the current system. You can lament or
> debate that all you like but the facts remain. So in the current system it
> is not acceptable, in my opinion, to push a change that includes build
> instructions for platform X without a build of platform X having been
> tested. So if a submitter can't do that test themselves then they need to
> collaborate with someone who can.
More information about the build-dev