[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?

From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 13:18:15 +0900

Ted Zlatanov writes:
 > On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:08:04 +0200 Romain Francoise <address@hidden> wrote: 

 > RF> My experience with running this buildbot (and others) suggests that
 > RF> there is little value in doing this; buildbot does a clean build
 > RF> every time so if it fails then we can be fairly sure that CVS is
 > RF> broken.
 > You think so even considering the large amount of people that would get
 > this report?  I'd rather be cautious and have at least one confirmation
 > of the failure before reporting it.  But, of course, it's your
 > choice--as long as we report something.

Romain's right, you don't need confirmation.  If a clean build breaks,
it's broke.  What to do about it is another question.

XEmacs has a separate list for build reports, whether user-contributed
or automatic.  From Richard's comments about the BTS, I'd put money on
him wanting a separate list for this, too.  (That's 'cause I really
like the odds, not because I speak for Richard.)  Works for us.  (We
don't use buildbot, yet.)

Python core just assumes that people (and in particular the release
engineers) will be watching the buildbot's waterfall URL.  Works for

Python also has a system of "community" (ie, apps written in Python)
buildbots with the intent of notifying somebody that the dev lines of
Python are breaking stable builds.  Current status is "failing
miserably", as nobody pays attention to them.  That is For reasons
that I don't think apply to Emacs, but for the sake of completeness I
include the case here.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]