When the builds are generated, they are automatically made available on download.01.org [1], which is good.
To date, the documentation for users [2] to indicate which version to install is updated to always point to the "best known version", which is updated based on the validation report generated by QA (that report should probably start being sent out to the mailing list) The plan (afaik) is that validation executes a full validation pass once per week. Subsequently, each binary that shows up in the download directory is going to go through a full validation pass, and if it passes, the binary would then be promoted to being listed in the documentation. If, however, there were more releases, and only some regression tests were being executed against some of those releases, the metric of "which version is the best version" becomes muddied. Releases in the download directory may or may not be staged to go through the full validation pass. As a side note, I can't anonymously access the JIRA issue you linked to in the start of this thread... James 1. https://download.01.org/crosswalk/releases/android/beta 2. https://crosswalk-project.org/#documentation/downloads On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Balestrieri, Francesco < [email protected]> wrote: > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ketrenos, > James P > > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:39 PM > > To: Kubo Da Costa, Raphael > > Cc: <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Creating Beta builds whenever fixes are > merged > > > Do we have a buildbot setup for the Beta tree? If not, would this > situation be corrected if we did and it was standard practice for > developers to test their fixes using the buildbot output? > > > I'm hesitant to create more Beta candidate builds as it is already > somewhat confusing trying to track which features have been validated in > the QA Beta regression test reports. > > Could you elaborate a bit on the confusion and how having more beta builds > would increase that? I've heard somewhat similar comments from various > people but don't have a clear idea on how we could improve. > > Francesco > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Raphael Kubo da Costa < > [email protected]> wrote: > "Balestrieri, Francesco" <[email protected]> writes: > > > right now beta builds are created once a week. However it would be > > good to verify that Beta blockers are fixed right away so that any > > follow up action is taken as soon as possible. We have that case right > > now where there is a new issue [1] in Beta blocking the verification > > of other fixes, and we could have probably noticed earlier. Ideally we > > would fix this quickly and have a new build right away to continue the > > verification. > > > > Would it be possible to create Beta builds on a daily basis as long as > > fixes are merged? > From a technical point of view it would be a matter of changing the cron > job to run daily instead of weekly. > > I can do that once the community agrees on that. > _______________________________________________ > Crosswalk-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel Finland Oy > Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki > Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 > Domiciled in Helsinki > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >
_______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
