James Carlson wrote:
Danek Duvall writes:
Is it really useful to have the gatekeeper tools in ON itself? Does
committing to that part of the repo mean following the full set of RTI
rules that the rest of the gate requires? Given the tiny audience for
these tools, I'd say no -- it adds a pretty significant burden to
maintaining the tools. Maybe that's me resisting change, but it's not
clear to me that non-product code (that used by at most one or two people)
should be here.
Depending on how the tools are written, they may also be useful for
those who are running large project gates and perhaps even to
independent consolidations, so I don't think the audience is
necessarily restricted to just the main ON gate staff.
In any event, given the importance of the tools, I think keeping them
under SCM control is itself a helpful bit of discipline.
If it's really the case that they change often and that the RTI
process is onerous for them, then that part of the problem should be
addressed. Perhaps they could be fixed so that they needn't be
changed often (may need to extract some parts into configuration
files) or the burden of the RTI process should be examined.
Instead of having each developer cobble together his own build script,
we have a common `nightly' script with options. Maybe the same sort
of design could serve for gate scripts.
Thank you Darren and Jim... you said what I was trying to say in a much
clearer way :)
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
