develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from November 2008

Re: git workflow (was Re: git?)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
November 15, 2008 08:28
Subject:
Re: git workflow (was Re: git?)
Message ID:
20081115162702.GC49335@plum.flirble.org
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 02:45:32PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> [2008-11-14 11:05]:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 04:59:08AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
> > > Some thoughts:
> > >
> > > (1) pumpkings publish to their own individual repositories
> > >
> > > pro: low admin overhead
> > > con: hard for the un-initiated to know which repository to
> > > clone to participate on a particular branch
> >
> > Fail: With this, there is no way to have people set up
> > automated smokers on (sometimes obscure) operating systems
> > which the pumpkings don't have access to.
> 
> Don???t see why not. Smokers can pull from multiple remotes into
> a single mirror repo as easily as they can pull from a single
> remote; no waste of bandwidth or jumbling of history.
> 
> That???s what the D in DVCS is all about.

Sure, and that strikes me as a recipe for chaos.

We'll get a smoke report, and then we have to work out which merge of upstreams
went into the source. It's quite possible that no human ever tried the merge,
and it will fail with compile time errors, which isn't very useful when we
get the same fail repeated 16 times in the same message.

I'd much rather automated smokers were smoking things that we already *expect*
to work, which have had a human run make test *on that source tree* before
committing them, so that we get reports on platform issues. Rather than have
the entire cross-platform smoking system act as a merge tinderbox system.

We can quite happily run the latter on a common platform for which we have lots
of horsepower.

Nicholas Clark

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About