sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:49:32 -0800
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 15:39 -0600, David Kowis wrote:
> Juuso Alasuutari wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 December 2006 21:26, Eric Sandall wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> We could have a box (or boxes) dedicated to running prometheus on all
> >> git commits against each spell modified. This, I think, would be a
> >> better approach than modifying Sorcery to do so (IMO Sorcery is the
> >> wrong tool for bug testing).
> >
> > I really like this idea. We talked about something like this with Arwed
> > when
> > he visited Finland a few months ago. Instant feedback from Prometheus
> > would
> > help harden our spells, as long as it wouldn't be used as an easy way to
> > avoid pre-commit testing (a valid concern).
> >
>
> Most git commits are version bumps, which developers should be testing
> anyway. So I'm not entirely sure how this would help. What would help
> more is a dedicated machine, or vm, with a fresh install on it, so when
> the spell is tested, it's against a clean install. This would ensure
> that the same environment is used for all testing. Even a chroot would
> probably work.
Which Prometheus is perfect for. After testing a spell it'll revert the
system back to how it was before that spell was cast. The version bump
testing is also important as features may change on a version bump, but
the developer most likely has not tested every combination of optional
dependencies and config_queries against the new version. Yes, we would
still need donations of boxes capable of providing this.
-sandalle
--
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, seth, 12/10/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Ladislav Hagara, 12/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Andrew Stitt, 12/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Daniel Goller, 12/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Andrew Stitt, 12/18/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Ladislav Hagara, 12/18/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Andrew Stitt, 12/18/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Eric Sandall, 12/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Juuso Alasuutari, 12/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, David Kowis, 12/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Eric Sandall, 12/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 12/20/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1,
Flavien Bridault, 12/05/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Robin Cook, 12/05/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Jaka Kranjc, 12/11/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.