On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 10:06 -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Mike C. Fletcher wrote: > > > Um, speaking as a Gentoo user, that's last bullet is a strange statement. > > The problem seems to be that you guys seem to be building from *head* on > > some > > huge number of projects (I say seem to be because I just wound up having to > > give up trying to get sugar installed due to broken builds). That would > > require very high discipline on all of the projects to make it work. > > > > If you had your build environment use a tag/revision in the source control > > system for each project and only update the version used when your core > > developers *know* that the new version has built and run on a couple of > > dozen > > boxes you'd have a far greater chance of getting new developers built > > without > > problems. In short, you'd have a testing tag and a stable tag for each > > component. > > > > Someone who just wants to use the environment (i.e. almost *all* new > > developers) could then build the stable tags, someone who wants to work > > with > > the latest and greatest could use the testing tags and contribute to the > > testing of them by their building. When everyone is building head in all > > these projects, by contrast, you are basically having every new developer > > build a different piece of software, with no idea whether what they are > > building is actually usable. Given that new developers are *new*, and thus > > unlikely to know whether they are seeing a failure in their usage or the > > code > > itself, knowing that what they are trying to do is *possible* is a great > > help > > for them. > > > > Sure, someone might get code that's 2 or 3 weeks out of date, but if they > > are > > working on a particular module, they'd set their tag to "HEAD" for that > > piece > > and be on the bleeding edge for that piece. > > +1. Especially since this is precisely what Sugar users end up > replicating -- the hard way. I'm building Sugar in its entirety, every > day, and whenever I find a build that "works", I use it for a while. > > Requires some additional overhead to determine what Sugar builds are > stable, of course -- and when you're moving rapidly in HEAD, that can be > difficult. >
If someone wants to maintain a stable list of modules in sugar-jhbuild we can totally do that. We could either base it on modules releases (using tarballs or tags) or the list maintainer could pick stable snapshots from git. Marco _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
