At 03:16 PM 12/7/2005 -0500, Mike Taylor wrote:
On Dec 7, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Andi Vajda wrote:
and so on - why not just add "check tinderbox in X minutes" to make sure
your change hasn't broken the different OS related builds?
I'm much more likely to check my email than the tinderboxes. I also
have an
IRC window open most of the time. But I don't have a browser window open
most of the time (small laptop screen).
currently the build status is mentioned, via the bot soup, in IRC and
there are a number of different sized status windows that the tinderbox
offers including non-browser ones.
I'm having trouble seeing why checking email or IRC for a status update is
any worse/better/different than checking email - the *only* thing I can
see so far is that email is targeted and that will be the case only for a
single commit change. It wouldn't be the case if, during a busy day, 5 or
6 people have updated the source.
That doesn't matter; as long as I don't get an email when I haven't
committed anything, I'm golden. If there's a failure that I *might* have
caused, I have to look at it anyway. What's worse, the current system has
a higher rate of false positives because it's virtually impossible to tell
for sure if an error was caused by your change without digging into the
logs to see the revision numbers anyway. So, an email notification would
actually have a *lower* false positive rate for me as a developer than the
current system.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
