Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: compile test of checkins mandatory ?
From: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster () gmx de>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:12:49 +0100
On 11/11/2013 04:39 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
On 11/08/13 10:09, Toralf Förster wrote:In the past few weeks I run more often than expected after a "svn update" into an build error, mostly obvious coding style issues / typos / "treat warning as errors" were the culprit. This let me wondering, if there isn't a hook in the central svn server to reject such check-in attempts ?I contemplated mentioning this a couple of weeks ago after you sent a mail to the list about the current SVN building. In general, we'll know pretty within a couple of hours (the time for the buildbots to actually do the builds) if we (or someone) break(s) the build. And someone will fix it soon enough; usually giving it a few hours is sufficient for someone to fix it.
Yes, in my experience a subsequent "svn update" often brought the fix - I appreciate such quick fixes (and FWIW I'm just playing with wireshark and run few rand/fuzzy tests) But I just compared it in my mind to the linux kernel policy to have at least a compile-able system to not break bisecting. -- MfG/Sincerely Toralf Förster pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3 ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- compile test of checkins mandatory ? Toralf Förster (Nov 08)
- Re: compile test of checkins mandatory ? Anders Broman (Nov 08)
- Re: compile test of checkins mandatory ? Gilbert Ramirez (Nov 08)
- Re: compile test of checkins mandatory ? Graham Bloice (Nov 08)
- Re: compile test of checkins mandatory ? Jeff Morriss (Nov 11)
- Re: compile test of checkins mandatory ? Toralf Förster (Nov 11)