On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Mike Edwards<mike.edwards.inglen...@gmail.com> wrote: > ant elder wrote: >> >> I see no issue at all with adding a (or several) new profiles that >> only build a subset of modules that anyone finds a useful combination, >> and they could be just committed without needing any consensus. The >> problems would come if we tried to make one of those subsets the build >> default. Also a worry is that with the testing spread out in lots of >> places we may not be testing properly by only building subsets, >> although that is partially overcome by having the Hudson nightly build >> keep building everything. >> >> ...ant >> > Ant, > > You've hit the nail on the head there Ant. > > It's OK doing partial builds UNTIL you want to commit something back to SVN. > Then, you must do a full build - otherwise you will have no idea what you > are screwing up. Seemingly innocuous changes can have significant impacts > on other parts of the code - and stop other folk in their tracks. This has > happened to me personally over the past few months and it isn't much fun. > > Nightly builds are not good enough - if you commit stuff without the full > build, you've potentially already messed up other folk by not checking that > your changes don't cause trouble to others. > > Yours, Mike. >
But consider that when the the build gets so big as 1.x the new or infrequent developers may not even get to see a build break as they struggle with just getting the time or dependencies downloaded. The reality is people do commit without running a full build even in 2.x where the build time relatively quick compared to 1.x. As we add more stuff to 2.x the build time will increase and that will happen more and more unless we find new ways to structure things. ...ant
