On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 00:54, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > Answering a few replies at once, since this thread has wandered all over > the place. > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:38:52PM +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 12:49, Kjartan Maraas wrote: > > > tir, 2002-11-12 kl. 11:37 skrev Michael Meeks: > [...] > > > > I think it's quite vital that we get developer consensus on at least > > > > one new sheriff. There was reluctance in eg. gtk+ to entertain the idea > > > > that even Jacob could commit build related fixes - we really need to try > > > > and attract some people that have the time, the interest, are doing loop > > > > builds and people respect enough[1] to allow them to poke their > > > > autotools. > > You are expanding the issue here. We need a build sheriff or two or > three just like we had for GNOME 2.0, since build do break, particularly > in the lead up to releases as mistakes get made under pressure and > tiredness. If all modules participate in this or not is really another > question. I agree, Michael, that it would be nice to have everybody > giving the same permissions, but if that doesn't happen, then so be it. > Not having any sheriff at all would then be cutting off our noses to > spite our face. > > > Who actually follows CVS HEAD for all the modules ? Somebody with a > > Tinderbox access would be good. (Ximian ok with letting someone with > > some access to theirs ?) > > The second question is really besides the point. You need people who > have the ability (and do) build regularly from the appropriate CVS > modules and branches a lot. During the lead up to the 2.0.0 there were > multiple people like that. Further, as Michael points out, you need > people who can understand the autotools stuff (mostly) and read the code > to work out what caused the breakage and revert the minimal amount > necessary to fix it. > > Looking at the Tinderbox results is one way to assure a build. Other > ways are building it yourself regularly and responding quickly when > people mention on IRC or in email that things aren't building -- then > the sheriff needs to go in, work out if it's a real build problem (which > about half of the ones I saw were not -- they were caused by problems on > people's system) and then fix it, if necessary. Surely the goal is > simply to keep the tree buildable during a time-sensitive phase of > development. How that is achieved is irrelevant. Besides the point ? I don't think so. Many of the people that could be in such a position (Build Sherriff) are hobbyist that probably don't have time to rebuild GNOME 24 hours a day. A Tinderbox is an essential tool for the job. IRC connection is needed, but it's not the sole way to get information. Cheers -- /Bastien Nocera http://hadess.net Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part