Re: How portable is it ? (was: [DotGNU]Embedding Portable.NET)

[Gopz]

If memory serves me right, Erik van der Poel wrote:
> Rhys (and you, and hopefully others, later) could use tinderbox to see
> if any of their check-ins broke the Mac build, HP build, etc. (I.e. OS's
> that you don't have, but that other people have made available to the
> tinderbox system.)

Yes, that is a good reason ... we had requested for SSH logins for
non x86 machines or other less popular OSes . And the response has
been good.

> If people are willing to make their machines available, you can have the
> machines do this automatable work.

Yes . I'm a great fan of automating work (== amazingly lazy)

> "Blame" is such a harsh word. Think of tinderbox as a tool that helps
> you catch problems early. You can narrow down the bug search to a
> certain check-in or set of check-ins.

Yes, I really know .. we can really do a tinderbox if I can figure 
out how . .. I'm a guy with a *slow* dialup and cannot fix up things
online (or try tinderboxing) stuff.

> Well, yes, tinderbox is even more valuable when you have more than one
> developer. Tinderbox might even get more developers interested in
> DotGNU.

Also one of the uses I have seen with a tinderbox are instant binary
builds .. ie cvs head binaries of GNU (Linux,Hurd,Darwin,Cygwin) ,
HPUX , (Open|Net|Free)BSD .

Unfortunately I'm down and out on bandwidth side , so someone else
will have to try the tinderbox ... I would like it very much if someone
knowledgeable in this would help us. Erik , could you ?.

If possible we could discuss this issue in detail at the pnet meet ...

Gopal
--
The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success