On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Hyrum K Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org> wrote: >> For the time being, the Ruby build step and tests have been commented >> out of the relevant scripts. >> >> I think there is value in running a bot on a stock (albeit currently >> beta) install of a popular Linux distribution. We don't control our >> users' machines, and pretty soon many of them will be upgrading to the >> latest Ubuntu. A not-insignificant-number of those people will >> discover their Subversion Ruby scripts don't work anymore. This is >> unfortunate, and the sooner we can find these problems, the better. >> Running a bot in this type of environment is one way to do so. (Plus, >> I haven't committed a line of code in 3 months: I have to do >> _something_ to feel more useful than just kibitzing on dev@. :) ) >> >> You are, of course, welcome to run yet another bot with its own >> configuration, but I recommend we still use this one. > > Well I agree there's value in that configuration, since as you rightly > point out it does alert us to upcoming issues. Coming from a > continuous delivery workplace here recently I was thinking that the > primary purpose of the buildbots was to alert us to breakage after > code changes. If the environment the build bot is running in is > changing out from under it, you can't tell at a glance that the build > was broken due to a code change or an environmental change on the > build bot.
Good point: it does require extra dev time to answer that question in the case of false negatives. Incidentally, I'm still seeing swig-pl build errors on that bot. From reading above, I thought these were addressed. Is that correct? -Hyrum
