What brett said. When the infrastructure is available to easily configure an on-demand one, go ahead and do it then.
-Ben On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Brett Wilson<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Nicolas Sylvain<[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Paweł Hajdan Jr. <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Can we have a trybot with that configuration, which would just compile the >>> code? I think it would really save people's time. I never build with >>> TOOLKIT_VIEWS, and in case of breakage I would have to immediately revert >>> and then investigate. If I got a trybot failure, I would know much more >>> before committing. >> >> Ben: How likely is this to break? >> I'm reluctant to add yet another try bot because they do take a lot of >> resources. There are maybe 200-300 try changes sent every day. That means >> we need enough resources to build this configuration that many times, and it >> needs to answer fast enough. > > I don't think an automatically-running trybot is very critical for > this build at the moment. Most of the things that break it are pretty > simple (need to add a file to GYP, or maybe a stub for something) so > the breakage won't be super complicated. Most errors will be caught by > the regular trybots. > > Brett > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
