Hi Michael, 2013/6/25 Bálint Réczey <bal...@balintreczey.hu>: > Hi Michael, > > 2013/6/24 Michael Tuexen <michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de>: > ... >>>> The current process puts responsibility on the core developer who >>>> commits a change. Personally, I don't think it is bad if this breaks >>>> the build on some buildbot, I only this it is bad if the committer >>>> doesn't care. This worked out pretty well in the past, I think. I only >>>> run the head version of wireshark and can usually build it (thanks to the >>>> Mac OS X buildbots). >>>> If a core developer didn't want to take responsibility for a patch, he >>>> could contact others to get feedback on questions. This also worked in >>>> the past since you contacted people who also are interested in the subject. >>> I'm generally satisfied with the quality of trunk and I'm proud to be part >>> of the project. >>> I also think if we could break trunk even less often, it would be even >>> better and Gerrit would help that and would also help discussing the >>> patches. >>> >>>> The same responsibility applies for changes being compiled by the >>>> buildbots. Each such change comes from a core developer. I'm >>>> hesitating to allow an arbitrary patch to compile on the buildbots >>>> where we have no one being responsible for it in any way. Some of the >>>> buildbots run older software, some of them are not hardened in any way. >>> If all the buildbots are running a newly cloned VM and limits network usage >>> of the VM, I think we can be safe. >> If we can change the buildbots running like that, you might be true. However, >> the current way the Mac OS X buildbots are running is different. The versions >> running currently on the buildbots are Leopard (PPC) and Snow Leopard (Intel) >> and would only allow the server versions to be virtualised. That would mean >> that we upgrade the buildbots to at least Lion... > Yes, this is a severe limitation of older OS X versions. > > The solution could be limiting some tests to run only changes after > integrating > them to the target branches based on time needed to run them or for other > reasons like this license problem. I have updated the proposal to note those exceptions.
Cheers, Balint ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
