Re: build stuff [was Re: gnome-vfs build issue]

[Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:35:23 +0000 (GMT), Sander Vesik
<sander_traveling yahoo co uk> wrote:
>  --- Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 17:55 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > But speaking more generally, I can imagine better solutions than
> > > defaulting to -Werror, they're just not implemented yet:
> > >
> > > For example, for the first point, it would be nice if we had a
> > > formalized means of submitting a patch against a project; then an
> > > automated process would try applying the patch, compiling with various
> > > warnings enabled, running test suites, etc., and would reject the patch
> > > if it failed, completely automatically.  A start at this could be
> > > grabbing patches from Bugzilla and requiring people to specify e.g. "CVS
> > > HEAD" in the comment.
> >
> > I'd really, really love for modulesets (and I suppose jhbuildrc?) to be
> > able to specify patches at remote locations, like a bugzilla URL. Being
> > able to, for example, build firefox with native icon bits, or gtk with
> > federico's search patches, would be great.
> >
> 
> Why radicaly reduce the incentive to actually do something about patches being
> stuck in bugzilla for ages?

In both of the examples I cited, it's not entirely clear that the
patches actually should be accepted upstream. That's the case I'm
mostly concerned with.

Luis