On 28/11/14 08:46, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2014-11-28 10:12 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will*
be broken, and code "purity" (right includes in the right sources,
mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep
non-unified builds around?
Another disadvantage here is that it will make adding or removing
source files harder, because you'll have to clean up the accumulated
"nonunified" bustage that shows up when files are shifted around
between unified files. (This might be somewhat harder to fix a year
or two later than it is when causing it.)
IMO, it seems worth maintaining a non-unified build, to minimize this
obscure fragility that will otherwise tend to accumulate over time. We
could reduce the infrastructure load by doing the non-unified build on a
more occasional basis; perhaps once a day would be enough?
We already have builds that (normally) happen once a day: nightlies. How
about switching to a pattern where in addition to the nightly build, we
also kick off a non-unified build for each platform on the same
changeset? If that fails, we file a bug, and the normal expectation
should be that such bugs can and will be fixed within a day (more or
less), so the non-unified builds aren't left perma-broken.
JK
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
