On 02/07/2011 09:30 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 08/02/11 12:55, Robert Collins wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Alex Rousskov >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The problem with branches is that you have to commit changes (and, >>> later, fixes) _before_ you test. Sometimes, that is not a good idea >>> because you may want to simply _reject_ the patch if it fails the test >>> instead of committing/fixing it. I suspect it would be OK to abuse lp a >>> little and create a "garbage" branch not associated with any specific >>> long-term development but used "when I need to test a patch" instead. >> >> You can certainly do that, and LP won't mind at all. Note though that >> a parameterised build in hudson can trivially build *any* branch off >> of LP, so you can equally push your experiment to >> ...$myexistingfeature-try-$thing-out. >> >> -Rob > > Except the virtual slaves are IPv6-only and windows slave is carefully > firewalled. Unless something major has changed that. And launchpad > seems not to be a dual-stack site yet. > > To get around the 3.ALPHA-patches problem I'll expand it out as separate > jobs tonight. It's going to be a bit of pain to keep track which job > numbers we have scheduled where but less pain than trunk experimental > commits or regular custom job creation. > > So... who wants Hudson logins to start using these? > > So far we have kinkie, guido, robert, henrik, and myself setup.
Cannot say I really _want_ it, but looks like I will need one to fix the icc compiler problem. Thank you, Alex.
