[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?
From: |
Ted Zlatanov |
Subject: |
Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this? |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:34:49 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 13:18:15 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
wrote:
SJT> 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.
SJT> Romain's right, you don't need confirmation. If a clean build breaks,
SJT> it's broke. What to do about it is another question.
Builds can break for many reasons, some local (e.g. disk full). Why
bother many people with a false report? It would condition them to
ignore truly broken builds. That's my concern.
SJT> XEmacs has a separate list for build reports, whether user-contributed
SJT> or automatic. From Richard's comments about the BTS, I'd put money on
SJT> him wanting a separate list for this, too. (That's 'cause I really
SJT> like the odds, not because I speak for Richard.) Works for us. (We
SJT> don't use buildbot, yet.)
SJT> Python core just assumes that people (and in particular the release
SJT> engineers) will be watching the buildbot's waterfall URL. Works for
SJT> them.
SJT> Python also has a system of "community" (ie, apps written in Python)
SJT> buildbots with the intent of notifying somebody that the dev lines of
SJT> Python are breaking stable builds. Current status is "failing
SJT> miserably", as nobody pays attention to them. That is For reasons
SJT> that I don't think apply to Emacs, but for the sake of completeness I
SJT> include the case here.
Thanks for explaining. I think the case for Emacs is simpler, but I am
certainly not the one to make any decisions about it. I just want to
provide the service because I want to do something about broken builds.
Ted
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?, Ted Zlatanov, 2008/08/01
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?, Romain Francoise, 2008/08/01
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?, Ted Zlatanov, 2008/08/01
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/02
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?,
Ted Zlatanov <=
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/04
- Message not available
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?, Ted Zlatanov, 2008/08/04
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/05
- buildbots (was: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?), Ted Zlatanov, 2008/08/05
- buildbots (was: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?), Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/05
- place to send build failure reports? (was: buildbots), Ted Zlatanov, 2008/08/08
- Re: place to send build failure reports?, Chong Yidong, 2008/08/08
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?, Romain Francoise, 2008/08/03
- Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?, Ted Zlatanov, 2008/08/04