Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] libpng, xorg-modular, and GCC

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] libpng, xorg-modular, and GCC
  • Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 01:28:44 +0900

George Sherwood (pilot AT beernabeer.com) wrote [11.05.14 23:36]:
> > > We have a few branches that should be merged into test, but they
> > > need testing. Right now they are stagnating. I will be setting up
> > > some VMs on my box to do tests, but welcome others to also test
> > > upgrading *from test* to these branches and workout/file any bugs
> > > found.
<snip>
> > devel-gcc is a evidence that if we want to stop updating spells it is
> > sufficient to create new branch. Last version update of gcc in test
> > grimoire was on 2010-04-01 into version 4.4.3. ;-( Nobody is really
> > interesting. :-(
<snip>
> > I am really upset with last Source Mage development. How many active
> > developers do we have? How it is possible that core developers use
> > half of year old sorcery? Core developers don't update their boxes.
> > Instead of using upstream they trying to fix deprecated spell
> > versions. Last months I really think about new Source Mage fork. :-(
<snip>
> It is clear to me that no matter how much that we would like it to
> work, the branch approach for grimoire development is not going to work
> for us given the number of developers that we have that are willing to
> really test these things.

Is the problem that people don't test branches? Or is the problem really
that people don't test period? It seems more that there is a problem
with active developers who are testing anything at all than with people
who are testing different branches. I personally don't think branching
policy, either for or against different branches, will have any affect
on the amount of testing that is actually done.

I think there needs to be some work on what exactly testing means, and
policy on how it's done, by whom, and by when. There's nothing wrong
with having a devel branch, mentioning its existence and call for
testing on the ML, and then just merging it after a certain period if no
problems are found. If no problems are found because no one tested the
branch and problems come up later, so be it - no one can complain,
because the announcement was there with the normal time period. The
problem we have is that we have no standard practices for how anything
is tested or merged. The only standard practice we have is the
transition from test to stable, and even that leaves "testing" somewhat
ill-defined.

This is just my own 2 cents, but again, I think we'll get further if we
figure out some kind of more concrete testing plan and write it up (just
a wiki page) so that everyone knows what it is, regardless of where we
do the testing (separate branches, everything in the "main" branch,
whatever).

--
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgpEy0anOuRys.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page