On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Feb 25, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >>> Excellent! >>> Pavel >>> We should add Pharo Kernel as dependent of the head so that we get >>> immediate feedback like that. >>> because this is really great. >>> >> >> It already is configured to be build after every update: >> >> https://ci.lille.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo%20Kernel%201.4/ >> >> tests, too: >> >> https://ci.lille.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo%20Kernel%20Tests/ >> >> Now we need to take action when it breaks... > > Of course it is always much better if the author of the patch can see > that it caused some problem than when some other person must later > investigate what patch of an update has evil side effect. > > I hardly need to tell you that it is very demotivating to wait what > next will break something again (as this week one single update fixed > one issue and brought the next one). Instead of improving of the > system we must spend a lot of energy on maintenance. > > We definitely must improve the QA process.
To support my lemmenting I must say that the state of non-failing kernel jobs lasted only 10 hours. :-) -- Pavel > > -- Pavel > > >> -- >> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de >> >>
