On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:33:43 +0300, Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Walter Bright > <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote: >> Jarrett Billingsley wrote: >>> >>> So what about the following counterargument: "even if nightly builds >>> were made available, how can we be sure that enough people are using >>> them to sufficiently test them?" OK, sure, if not many people are >>> using the nightly builds, then there wouldn't be much benefit. But it >>> does seem to work out fine for a lot of projects. And with a proper >>> SCM set up which you commit to daily, there's virtually no work on >>> your part. You just commit, and everyone else can download and >>> compile. >> >> I believe that people downloading half-baked works in progress and then >> finding problems I already know about and am fixing is probably not more >> productive. >> > > Some of us might actually look at your changes. > > 1) We get a forewarning for changes that might affect LDC/GDC/D.NET etc. > > 2) We can comment on changes. Ideally there would be a mailing list > with each commit. This makes discussion of specific changes much > easier. > > 3) You get feedback on the code. > > I'm not sure how many people have access to your code, or if you even > use a SCM repository locally. > > As an extra bonus you could release your internal test suite as well. > This would be useful for projects like LDC, as a compliment to > DStress. Do you use Dstress? > > The testing process of DMD could be much less opaque in general. > > -Tomas > *Highly* agree!
