Re: before checking in

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> On Thu Oct 25, Eli writes:

>> There's no reason why the code in CVS shouldn't always be able to
>> build correctly.

> There are lots of reasons.  The development trunk is by definition
> unstable; the code is made stable during pretests.  That's life,
> sorry; people who want stable code should not be using the CVS
> version.

Perhaps we take a different view on unstable.  I don't mind a feature
being unstable, but if I don't use that feature, it shouldn't make
Emacs unbuildable.

I work on a C++ compiler with so many #ifdef's, I calculated we could
produce several hundred different compilers from our one source base.
And yet, it IS possible to enforce the rule that whatever is in CVS
should be able to build and pass regressions.

Developers shouldn't have to test every configuration; that's what
beta and pretesting are for.  But the code should build and run for
the person making the change before it's checked in.  In this
particular case, the person in question told me they HAD compiled and
tested, so I guess I'm happy enough.

It's just that whenever I see missing syntactic characters in a C file
*checked in*, it makes me wonder.

John