Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051123 21:26]: > >>>when we have the tree in it's old well-known marvelous state again we >>>should require that every patch that goes into the tree from the tracker >>>is proven to break nothing by attaching an abuild of the whole tree >>>before and after the patch. This is 10min work for that one developer >>>per patch, but safes weeks for all of us. >> >>What do you plan to do for archs that need a cross compiler? > > > Hm. We could put out a close description of how to build cross compilers > for the suite or allow developers to submit their patches and get the > results to it from the linuxbios.org machine. > > Stefan > >
The thing is, it's just not possible to be casual about patches any more, as we were in the past. We've had the megapatch mess on our hands for almost 2 months, the tree is still a mess, and it's very hard to dig out. A BIOS is a much more sensitive piece of software than an operating system. You screw up the BIOS, you've got a lot of dead hardware on your hands and there is no way out. I think placing some sort of burden of proof on committers is a good idea. We've got to get this under control. ron -- LinuxBIOS mailing list LinuxBIOS@openbios.org http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
