Vladimir Zhirov wrote:
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
What would be helpful would be a scoring system: if any of the
developers knows that he's just checked something in that
might result in an inconsistency a branch (or tag etc.) gets
bumped from green to amber, or to red if he knows there's
something dodgy that will be fixed in a few minutes.
I thought about something like this too. Plus svn trunk users
could "vote for" revision they use if it is stable enough for
them. These two measures combined would help users who want more
stable IDE+LCL to jump between good revisions and avoid bad ones.
The side effect though is that errors would be found later than
sooner, i.e. the number of bad revisions would theoretically
increase when using this approach.
I suspect that developers would be unhappy about something like that,
although that might be a gut rather than reasoned reaction.
Possibly the simplest thing would be if checkins wrote a timestamp to a
file in the branch/tag's root, that would mean that a client script
could hold off if it saw (for example) that there was an update less
than five minutes ago just in case it's part of a flurry of development
activity.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
