On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
Ted Leung wrote:
Could you then rephrase the ballot in terms of 4a and 4b?
4a) do nothing
4b) some variation of the case where dev is as is and end-user bits
don't contain any tools or tests, but there is some script or some new
way to get the missing tests and tools
I'll say:
4a -1 because we clearly need to do something
Actually, part of the problem, is that you haven't made that very clear.
Shortening the build cycle is not a valid reason. For that, I'd suggest
having two sets of machines, one for debug, one for release. If the cycles
didn't do both all the time you could achieve the same gain.
If there are other reasons, I'm sorry for missing them.
Note that I'm not disagreeing with you here. Personally, I find the debug bits
only marginally useful as a distribution. It's just that the statement
'clearly need to do something' rings a little hollow.
4b -1 because I believe one of the requirements is that all of the tests
and tools should in in one downloadable package, in the release, and
that people should test the release and not some other thing
+1
Andi..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
