Hi Robinson, Hi Norbert,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:30:46PM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
...
can anyone of you join the QA Call:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-LibreOffice-QA-Call-2012-07-27-td3997905.html
to report about the tinbuild/bibisect progress?
Best,
Bjoern
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi Robinson, Hi Norbert,
can anyone of you join the QA Call:
to report about the tinbuild/bibisect progress?
Hi Bjoern,
Sorry I wasn't able to make the QA call.
One thought that came to me yesterday re:
On 27/07/12 19:15, Robinson Tryon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi Robinson, Hi Norbert,
can anyone of you join the QA Call:
to report about the tinbuild/bibisect progress?
Hi Bjoern,
Sorry I wasn't able to make the QA
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com wrote:
yeah that would be fine indeed, but it's unfortunately a complete PITA
to build the pre-3.5 stuff because some genius had the glorious idea to
split the code across 20 git repositories, so good luck trying to find a
On 21/07/12 23:12, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
So... I committed you patch, and then refactored it 'a bit'
First I separated the operation in 3 differents operations:
1/ the need to make the install: I added in Makefile.top a new
install-tb target that avoid the 'rebuilding' for nothing, and
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com wrote:
On 21/07/12 23:12, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
So... I committed you patch, and then refactored it 'a bit'
First I separated the operation in 3 differents operations:
1/ the need to make the install: I added in Makefile.top
On 25/07/12 22:01, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com wrote:
On 21/07/12 23:12, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
So... I committed you patch, and then refactored it 'a bit'
First I separated the operation in 3 differents operations:
1/ the need
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com wrote:
the problem with the duplication is that the next time somebody fixes a
problem with the dev-install target they will probably forget to fix
the install-tb target as well, and if the problem affects tinderboxes
as well
On 25/07/12 23:35, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com wrote:
the problem with the duplication is that the next time somebody fixes a
problem with the dev-install target they will probably forget to fix
the install-tb target as well, and if
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com wrote:
On 25/07/12 23:35, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com wrote:
the problem with the duplication is that the next time somebody fixes a
problem with the dev-install target
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
So... I committed you patch, and then refactored it 'a bit'
Yeah, sorry for making you do a big reorg of all of my code. I'll try
to send smaller patches in the future so they'll require less surgery
from you
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Robinson Tryon
bishop.robin...@gmail.com wrote:
TODO: right now we make install and deliver at every build... there
may be a reason to do that less often... but the logic to only
conditionally do that is not obvious. time based suck,
How much of a time suck
(updating subject line)
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
+ I'd like not to create a new step for that but to fold it in the 'push'
step
For clarity I'll keep the bulk of the code factored-out into a
separate function, but I'll have that function
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Robinson Tryon
bishop.robin...@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I've done some testing here, I realize that we need some way
to turn off the push-nightlies step while still enabling the creation
of the bibisect repositories. For example, I don't want to bother with
14 matches
Mail list logo
