Hi,
just an idea from a completely uneducated person regarding buildd:
What about if each freshly uploaded package which contains architecture any
packages would enter kind of a staging area first and buildds grab these
files from there. After each buildd was able to build a package
Am 19.11.03 um 07:42:18 schrieb Andreas Tille:
After each buildd was able to build a package the whole
set with all architectures enters unstable at once.
Yeah, cool. That would get rid of many buggy packages. And many clean
ones. Some buildd are horribly behind time. No offence meant,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:48:10AM +0100, Michael Piefel wrote:
Am 19.11.03 um 07:42:18 schrieb Andreas Tille:
After each buildd was able to build a package the whole
set with all architectures enters unstable at once.
I like the idea.
Yeah, cool. That would get rid of many buggy
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Take workrave, for instance. Perfectly stable, as far as I can tell. Not
built recently on m68k (because of libgnomeuimm2.0-dev), not built on
alpha for a very long time (same reason). It's not in testing, which is
bad enough, with your idea only
Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
just an idea from a completely uneducated person regarding buildd:
What about if each freshly uploaded package which contains architecture any
packages would enter kind of a staging area first and buildds grab these
files from there. After each buildd was able
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:42:18AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
just an idea from a completely uneducated person regarding buildd:
What about if each freshly uploaded package which contains architecture any
packages would enter kind of a staging area first and buildds grab these
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:44:31AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
No!!! it would delay to much the entry of some important packages in
unstable. It would maybe improve some architectures, but definitely
would reduce extensive testing of newer versions.
In which way would it improve
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:02:17AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I don't think people would like it if their package stayed in incoming
for multiple weeks because there's a backlog on some architecture.
Neither i. This is why i would like to receive baklogs mailed to maintainer if
autobuild
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
If we let it in and then we auto-build it, we get a new package with FTBFS
(i.e RC) bugs and slow down release even more.
If we auto-build it first and, if no upstream/package faults, we let it in, we
get less RC bugs.
Exactly this
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:42:18AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
What about if each freshly uploaded package which contains architecture any
packages would enter kind of a staging area first and buildds grab these
files from there. After each buildd was able to build a package the
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
b. They are already kept off testing (if there is a regression),
so what's the problem?
The problem is that other packages which might depend from a package
which is broken on one architecture will not move into testing. If you
would keep
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:10:14AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
If we let it in and then we auto-build it, we get a new package with FTBFS
(i.e RC) bugs and slow down release even more.
If we auto-build it first and, if no
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
(...)
Why developers should care more about packages not entering
into unstable that packages not entering into testing?
I worry about indirect delays. Scenario: developer A@ do good job with
packages A, but A requires packages B. What should A do?
Waiting
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:10:14AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
Exactly this was the idea. I'm unsure whether experimental could serve as
this kind of staging area.
I would keep experimental only for experiments (:P), while i see your proposal
as a new step to be included in our packages
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:21:18AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I worry about indirect delays. Scenario: developer A@ do good job with
packages A, but A requires packages B. What should A do?
Waiting and not lose the motivation?
Help B@, maybe with a NMU, but still waiting the canonical
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:02:17AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I don't think people would like it if their package stayed in incoming
for multiple weeks because there's a backlog on some architecture.
Neither i. This is why i would
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I worry about indirect delays. Scenario: developer A@ do good job with
packages A, but A requires packages B. What should A do?
Waiting and not lose the motivation?
But the problem can be the other way around: A builds his package against
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
just an idea from a completely uneducated person regarding buildd:
What about if each freshly uploaded package which contains architecture any
packages would enter kind of a staging area first and buildds grab these
files from there.
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:21:18AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
- the developers (maybe requiring not only uploader) could override the
waiting status in pre-unstable queue.
I do not understand this: what do you mean?
I don't like automatic system
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:42:18AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
just an idea from a completely uneducated person regarding buildd:
What about if each freshly uploaded package which contains architecture any
packages would enter kind of a staging area first and buildds grab these
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
You are ignoring all the packages that don't build and never have been
build for some architecture. Mainly that happens if some
build-depends, like the compiler needed, wasn't yet ported.
But this is no FTBFS bug than. I just want to keep
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This seems like a solution in search of a problem. What problem are
you actually trying to solve? Start by describing it, then we can try
dreaming up ways to solve it. [Given your vague description of what
this would accomplish, I have a few guesses
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 03:12:42PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This seems like a solution in search of a problem. What problem are
you actually trying to solve? Start by describing it, then we can try
dreaming up ways to solve it. [Given your
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
You are ignoring all the packages that don't build and never have been
build for some architecture. Mainly that happens if some
build-depends, like the compiler needed, wasn't yet ported.
It gets
Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:21:18AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
- the developers (maybe requiring not only uploader) could override
the waiting status in pre-unstable queue.
I do not
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Andreas Tille wrote:
just an idea from a completely uneducated person regarding buildd:
What about if each freshly uploaded package which contains architecture any
packages would enter kind of a staging area first and buildds grab these
files from there. After
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 03:43:31AM -0600, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:02:17AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I don't think people would like it if their package stayed in incoming
for multiple weeks because there's a backlog on some architecture.
Neither
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 03:12:42PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This seems like a solution in search of a problem. What problem are
you actually trying to solve? Start by describing it, then we can try
dreaming up ways to solve it. [Given your
28 matches
Mail list logo
