On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> yeah that would be fine indeed, but it's unfortunately a complete PITA
> to build the pre-3.5 stuff because some genius had the glorious idea to
> split the code across 20 git repositories, so good luck trying to find a
> combination of revis
On 27/07/12 19:15, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
> wrote:
>> Hi Robinson, Hi Norbert,
>> can anyone of you join the QA Call:
>> to report about the tinbuild/bibisect progress?
>
> Hi Bjoern,
> Sorry I wasn't able to make the QA call.
>
> One thought t
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
wrote:
> Hi Robinson, Hi Norbert,
> can anyone of you join the QA Call:
> to report about the tinbuild/bibisect progress?
Hi Bjoern,
Sorry I wasn't able to make the QA call.
One thought that came to me yesterday re: unified bibisect repository
i
Hi Robinson, Hi Norbert,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:30:46PM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> ...
can anyone of you join the QA Call:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-LibreOffice-QA-Call-2012-07-27-td3997905.html
to report about the tinbuild/bibisect progress?
Best,
Bjoern
_
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 25/07/12 23:35, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
>>> the problem with the duplication is that the next time somebody fixes a
>>> problem with the "dev-install" target they will probably forg
On 25/07/12 23:35, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> the problem with the duplication is that the next time somebody fixes a
>> problem with the "dev-install" target they will probably forget to fix
>> the "install-tb" target as well, and if the pro
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> the problem with the duplication is that the next time somebody fixes a
> problem with the "dev-install" target they will probably forget to fix
> the "install-tb" target as well, and if the problem affects tinderboxes
> as well then they wil
On 25/07/12 22:01, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> On 21/07/12 23:12, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>>> So... I committed you patch, and then refactored it 'a bit'
>>>
>>> First I separated the operation in 3 differents operations:
>>>
>>> 1/ the need t
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 21/07/12 23:12, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>> So... I committed you patch, and then refactored it 'a bit'
>>
>> First I separated the operation in 3 differents operations:
>>
>> 1/ the need to make the install: I added in Makefile.top a new
>
On 21/07/12 23:12, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> So... I committed you patch, and then refactored it 'a bit'
>
> First I separated the operation in 3 differents operations:
>
> 1/ the need to make the install: I added in Makefile.top a new
> install-tb target that avoid the 'rebuilding' for nothing,
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Robinson Tryon
wrote:
>> TODO: right now we make install and deliver at every build... there
>> may be a reason to do that less often... but the logic to only
>> conditionally do that is not obvious. time based suck,
>
> How much of a time suck are we talking about
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> So... I committed you patch, and then refactored it 'a bit'
>
Yeah, sorry for making you do a big reorg of all of my code. I'll try
to send smaller patches in the future so they'll require less surgery
from you afterwards.
> First I sepa
So... I committed you patch, and then refactored it 'a bit'
First I separated the operation in 3 differents operations:
1/ the need to make the install: I added in Makefile.top a new
install-tb target that avoid the 'rebuilding' for nothing, and just do
make dev-install (except that on linux it
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Robinson Tryon
wrote:
>
> Now that I've done some testing here, I realize that we need some way
> to turn off the push-nightlies step while still enabling the creation
> of the bibisect repositories. For example, I don't want to bother with
> pushing nightlies, es
(updating subject line)
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>>>
>>> + I'd like not to create a new step for that but to fold it in the 'push'
>>> step
>>
>> For clarity I'll keep the bulk of the code factored-out into a
>> separate function, but I'll have that function calle
15 matches
Mail list logo
