Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] publishing grimoire tarballs (was: PERFORCE change 69559 by Eric Sandall for review)

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] publishing grimoire tarballs (was: PERFORCE change 69559 by Eric Sandall for review)
  • Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:55:28 -0600

On Nov 17, Seth Alan Woolley [seth AT positivism.org] wrote:
> > If we decide we don't care if we use a server-side key to sign
> > test/games/z-rejected, I can set up a p4 sandbox on the dedicated box and
> > push them to ibiblio from there. If we decide we want to keep the keys on
> > developer machines only regardless of grimoire, that doesn't work. I'll
> > suggest that's Arwed's decision, but I don't know what Eric's and other
> > opinions are.
>
> Well, it's a "release engineering" decision. QA had been doing release
> engineering (for grimoire, but not sorcery) in the past, but for the
> rebuild, it's gone more toward Arwed, the grimoire lead. I just think
> once somebody has said they are going to do it, they need to just do it
> (it doesn't take that long). I don't think I have to do this, I don't
> think arwed has to do it, I just think one of us has to be ultimately
> responisble and we both must be able to (as backup for each other).
>
> As far as the "policy change", I don't really consider it needing public
> discussion unless somebody doesn't like it. If we're going to nit-pick
> how the rebuilt process happens on every change, it would never have
> gotten back up and running.

I agree it just needs to get done. I don't really care how, the relevant
points have been raised. It started to sound like it was headed for a
more drawn-out policy discussion (especially on whether or not test should
be run from a dev machine or the server), and I'd rather avoid that for
right now, which is what prompted the last post. I don't have a strong
opinion either whether you or Arwed does it, as long as you guys agree
about it and one of you gets it going soon. Not speaking as APL, just as
the guy currently trying to remember to do it manually each day in between
all the other stuff I'm doing. ;-)

> Regarding the timeline of "this weekend or next", I'm still undergoing a
> number of job interviews and I didn't want to commit to the use of my
> server as a long-term upload station until I knew what my arrangements
> would be for the future (if I had to relocate). It's really two
> different issues (maybe I wasn't clear), one was automating test
> updates, the other was pushing non-automated updates. The timeline for
> stable-rc being generated and on the server will be this weekend at the
> absolute latest, as you say. The timeline for test updates, as has been
> discussed on the list, I was saying when I could commit to it, but I'm
> not opposed to arwed pushing test grimoire updates himself or any other
> developer if you don't want me doing it. I was just saying if nobody
> else wants to do it what my timeline was for that.

I mostly suggested you for hosting it because Arwed didn't sound like he
had an always-on box, and you do. If that doesn't work for you for any
reason though, say so; again, if the people responsible don't care if the
automated tarballs get generated on a server, we can do it on the dedicated
box. This is especially relevant if you don't want to be generating and
pushing z-rejected from your box given the recent opinions you've expressed
about that. If that's the case, speak up so something else can get going.
It just needs done.

Attachment: pgp90mcr6i4YP.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page