Greg Schafer wrote: > Matthew Burgess wrote: > > >>As regards to LFS unstable living up to its name, that's probably >>because we chose the right name for it, i.e. we don't try and pretend >>that it's something it isn't. I don't see why you thought a :-( was >>necessary. Yes, testing could have been more thorough, but builds take >>so long on my box I thought I'd be able to sneak that little change in >>there. > > > IMHO, that's a cop-out. Large efforts have been spent on having the > ability to build directly from the XML source. With jhalfs, you have a > golden opportunity to change the LFS development paradigm and raise the > LFS QA standard simply by taking advantage of some smart automation. > Technical excellence is nigh! :-) But no, we are still stuck in the past > where we just commit changes and expect unsuspecting testers to report any > fsckups. How incredibly soft!!
I think this is a bit too strong. The committers do try to make sure things are right before the commit, but a full rigorous test for every commit to unstable is not necessary. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
