On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Commitment is a good thing. > I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support. > If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day. > Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be able to fix > without the on-demand one.
As several people have pointed out already, the surface of possible conflicts is relatively limited, and- as you did in 2007- the devs on Windows will report and fix bugs in that platform as they find them. CI is important for detecting and preventing bugs, but this isn't software we're launching into orbit. > Making two builds is less than 2 days work, imho, given that there is > a Windows node available and that mvn targets are in place. Correct me > if I missed any complications in the process. On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > It seems that with the HW in place, the matter of setting at least nightly > build is trivial for anyone with up to date Windows knowledge. I wish I could > help. Going without a validation is a recipe for a disaster IMO. Fair enough, though that also implies that the window for regressions is small, and it leaves little room to doubt that this will receive priority. Until it's merged, spurious notifications that the current trunk breaks Windows are an awkward introduction to devs' workflow. The order of merge/CI is a choice between mild annoyances, really. But it might be moot. Giri: you're doing the work on this. When do you think it can be complete? -C
