On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:08:03PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > >On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote: > >>>>"no matter how small the change, use diff + patch to move it across." > >>> > >>>After applying the patch on your commit machine, is it too difficult > >>>to actually retest before committing? This would catch the broken > >>>commit before it becomes a Tinderbox issue. > >>> > >>>Seems to be a QA problem on your part. > >> > >>yes.. but I can't do a compile from my mac. (my commit machine). The > >>answer is to be rigorous about how I move the patch from the build > >>machine to the commit machine. > >> > >>This is a temporary situation. new infrastructure will let me commit > >>from my build machine again. > > > >I find having a copy of Parallels (or VMWare) around very useful for > >precisely this situation -- it means that even when I have only the Mac > >around I can easily do a local test build. The various VM packages > >certainly have their limitations, but they're far better than nothing. > > And to be fair, there are habitual build breakers and there are > non-habitual build breakers. Julian, IMHO, falls mostly into the > latter category, yet I see people focus on him disproportionally. > Funny. Kinda. Not.
I'm not focusing on Julian. I'm focusing on the process. No one should be committing a patch that touchs functioning code to src/ without proper testing. Moving a patch from a build machine to a commit machine and then having to hand apply the patch is prone to error. -- Steve _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
