On 3 October 2007 at 13:34, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Hindess wrote: > > On 3 October 2007 at 13:32, "Stepan Mishura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro > te: > >> On 10/2/07, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Something to think about after M3... > >>> > >>> On 2 October 2007 at 14:46, "Stepan Mishura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w > ro > >> te: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Currently, the next milestone candidate (r580985) is under testing. > >>> It might be more consistent if we named candidates/snapshots/etc > >>> using the canonical revision number - i.e. the last change revision > >>> number - rather than some arbitrary revision number after it (and > >>> before the next change). > >>> > >> I agree. I think this may correlate with auto selection of revision > >> number for the next snapshot. The idea is to create automation for > >> collecting/analysing integrity testing results and choosing the best > >> revision for some period of time (for example, 48 hours) > > > > Sounds good so long as we can find a way to pick the best revision > > without doing too many queries against the svn server. ;-) > > I think it is possible to use "svn info" to get "Last Changed Rev" out > of the repository. It doesn't query the server at all.
Of course, and that is what I had in mind when suggesting we fix our processes, but it sounded like Stepan had something more sophisticated in mind. Regards, Mark.
