On 13 Nov 2010, at 19:36, Tim Moore wrote: > There's never been a guarantee that the development sources compile for > everybody at all moments. That's why they are development sources. I > appreciate the Hudson process and quite often the change to get things > compiling on a given platform are obvious, but sometimes they aren't and one > needs to rely on the help of those who know the other platforms better. I > don't see why they would have get their own copy of the offending source code > from anywhere other than the "next" branch.
I tend to agree - I understand why processes such as that proposed by Alex make sense where the cost of breakage is very high, but with our number of developers and commit rate, I think a high-powered 'revert bad commits' system will generate more hassle than it avoids. James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Centralized Desktop Delivery: Dell and VMware Reference Architecture Simplifying enterprise desktop deployment and management using Dell EqualLogic storage and VMware View: A highly scalable, end-to-end client virtualization framework. Read more! http://p.sf.net/sfu/dell-eql-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
