[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline] |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:16:24 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i |
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:55:29PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:11 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:19:14AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 13:20 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > Huh, interesting timing. I've been thinking about this problem for a
> > > > week or two, and started to put together some of the intrastructure it
> > > > needs.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly gcc is a good example of a project which this problem, but
> > > > I'm not convinced their approach is the best solution. A PQM-driven
> > > > mainline that only allows commits which do not cause regressions is
> > > > probably what they really want. But it's easy enough to handle what
> > > > they currently do.
> > >
> > > Isn't that exactly what arch-pqm can do right now?
> >
> > Only if you have a magic "Should I merge this?" function.
>
> Of course not, but it allows for enforcing arbitrary user-defined
> precommit conditions, i.e., "Does this merge pass the test suite".
Yes, but this is based on the assumption that you have a sensible way
to implement this condition. Which you actually probably don't.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], (continued)
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Andrew Suffield, 2004/06/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Andrew Suffield, 2004/06/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline],
Andrew Suffield <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Andrew Suffield, 2004/06/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Andrew Suffield, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Andrew Suffield, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Andrew Suffield, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Charles Duffy, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Andrew Suffield, 2004/06/23