On 6/03/2013 9:44 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>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.
David
-----
The current state is a regression.
Martin
