> Is there a way that we can fix refclock testing into CI? If you can describe
> how we'd run that test (don't worry about the platform details), I can work
> on a way to integrate it into our pipelines. Same question for running
> testing running without refclocks.
The short answer is no, yo
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:14:47AM -0800, Hal Murray wrote:
>
> > That still makes this table a maintainence headache. Can we instead say
> > that
> > we built on modern/supported-by-upstream releases of popular operating
> > systems and distributions. And we build test on the platforms support
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 3:32 AM Hal Murray via devel
wrote:
> The usual solution to the maintain 2 places problem is to write a program
> to
> translate one format into the other. Then we have to maintain that
> program. :)
>
Which program? The C or the Python?
Double :-)
--
Sanjeev Gupta
+6
>> Otherwise, we're maintaining data in 2 places and it's going
>> to get out of sync.
> Agreed. That's to be avoided.
I would say avoided when appropriate but managed when necessary.
The usual solution to the maintain 2 places problem is to write a program to
translate one format into the
> One way we can dodge around this is by changing those assertions to "version
> X and later". Forward-compatibility breaks affecting the stuff we use are so
> rare that I think this is safe - and on thoe exceotional occasions they cause
> enough ruckus that we are unlikely not to notice.
That
> That still makes this table a maintainence headache. Can we instead say that
> we built on modern/supported-by-upstream releases of popular operating
> systems and distributions. And we build test on the platforms supported by
> our CI system. See https://gitlab.com/NTPsec/ntpsec/blob/master
Yo Hal!
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 23:52:35 -0800
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> We need a mechanism to review/update things occasionally and a list
> of things that need occasional review.
Did I just hear you volunteer? Have at it!
RGDS
GARY
--
Matthew Selsky via devel :
> > What do you think of this policy?
>
> That still makes this table a maintainence headache. Can we instead say that
> we built on modern/supported-by-upstream releases of popular operating
> systems and distributions. And we build test on the platforms supported b
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 09:48:53AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> Hal Murray via devel :
> >
> > We need a mechanism to review/update things occasionally and a list of
> > things
> > that need occasional review.
> >
> > Here is a starter:
> > https://www.ntpsec.org/supported-platfo
Hal Murray via devel :
>
> We need a mechanism to review/update things occasionally and a list of things
> that need occasional review.
>
> Here is a starter:
> https://www.ntpsec.org/supported-platforms.html
> Under test status, it says:
> Fedora 26 and 25 (i686, x86_64)
> and lots more.
>
We need a mechanism to review/update things occasionally and a list of things
that need occasional review.
Here is a starter:
https://www.ntpsec.org/supported-platforms.html
Under test status, it says:
Fedora 26 and 25 (i686, x86_64)
and lots more.
We could fix most of that by replacing sp
11 matches
Mail list logo
