On 11/11/2013 04:39 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote: > On 11/08/13 10:09, Toralf Förster wrote: >> In the past few weeks I run more often than expected after a "svn >> update" into an build error, mostly obvious coding style issues / typos >> / "treat warning as errors" were the culprit. >> >> This let me wondering, if there isn't a hook in the central svn server >> to reject such check-in attempts ? > > I contemplated mentioning this a couple of weeks ago after you sent a > mail to the list about the current SVN building. In general, we'll know > pretty within a couple of hours (the time for the buildbots to actually > do the builds) if we (or someone) break(s) the build. And someone will > fix it soon enough; usually giving it a few hours is sufficient for > someone to fix it. > > Yes, in my experience a subsequent "svn update" often brought the fix - I appreciate such quick fixes (and FWIW I'm just playing with wireshark and run few rand/fuzzy tests)
But I just compared it in my mind to the linux kernel policy to have at least a compile-able system to not break bisecting. -- MfG/Sincerely Toralf Förster pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3 ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
