On Jan 30, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > On 01/30/2012 09:41 AM, Robert Ottenhag wrote: >>> > A push to a shared repo without verifying it builds on all supported >>> > platforms is risky behavior, and one that can >>> > consume needless resources finding out it doesn't build, and more >>> > importantly waste your co-worker's time undoing it. >>> > We have the ability to prevent that, and we should. >> I totally agree. Passing suitable build and test requirements (check-in >> testing) is crucial (having 100+ developers waiting for a build fix is >> a_bad_ thing). >> > > We need to be careful here. We have the ability to totally overload any > reasonable build system, and going through a full build and test for what are > sometimes small changes may be impractical (having 100+ developers waiting > for the build queue is also a _bad_ thing.) > > As Joe Darcy often points out, we need to be careful that we are not so > afraid of doing anything bad that we prevent anything good from happening. > > Note, I am /not/ saying we don't need a good build and test system. We do. > We just need to be careful how we mandate its use. > > -- Jon
Totally agree Jon, it's a balancing act, we do what makes sense and what gives us the best chance of keeping poison or broken changesets from getting into circulation. We cannot run all the tests all the time. I also think that extremely low or no risk changes need not follow this rule, but the problem is getting people to agree with 'no risk changes' are. I've seen enough 'low risk' changes bring the house down that I'm on the paranoid side. :^( -kto
