Hi Mathias, Mathias Bauer schrieb:
AFAIK there are some people already discussing the possible work flow. So we don't need to rush things.
I know, that the release status meeting decided that somebody should define a process. Currently I saw only opened discussion, but I couldn't see a team which work on this action item. - perhaps I do not read enough mailing lists :-( - So I wanted to speed up the definition of a process with my provocative question. Currently the QA had a big problem. 1. they cannot find out, what the problems of the tinderbox results is; they could only decide on the color of the result 2. we cannot reject the CWS, because the development doesn't exactly know, how they can analyze and/or fix the problems 3. the code line maintainer are validly angry when QA approve the CWS with build breakers 4. it isn't possible to compare the results of Master build with CWS I talked with the Gatekeeper and he told me, that he need a clear statement, what should be done with CWSs where the tinderbox results are not green (or only what to do when they are red).
For me a process that rejects CWS with "red" tinderbox build does not meet these quality requirements at the moment. A new process like this one must be formerly agreed on by *all* participants. And it must be tested for some time (like we test our products) before it is rolled out and made mandatory for all CWS.
You are absolutely right here. Thorsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
