[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 02:39:09 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i |
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 09:20:31PM -0400, Colin Walters 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.
>
> What is not sensible about the current implementation?
>
> We iterate over the pending merge requests, try the merge in a temporary
> directory, then if that has no textual conflict, run the precommit hook.
> If that succeeds, then commit.
Lack of a useful hook.
--
.''`. ** 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], 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, 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, 2004/06/23
- 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
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Jan Hudec, 2004/06/23
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Charles Duffy, 2004/06/23