10 Feb
2014
10 Feb
'14
6:02 p.m.
heh,heh,heh, sip4-tqt FTBFS, python-tqt FTBFS, tdeutils
FTBFS,
etc... I feel your pain... and share the bags under your eyes :-)
The point being that FTBFS patches are being pushed lately without
everybody having an opportunity to test. "Works for me" is not a
good motto. I understand that somebody needs a patch to avoid
FTBFS. I get that. We all do. Yet FTBFS patches should be tested by
everybody involved.
Darrell
10 Feb
10 Feb
6:08 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] undefined symbols in all builds
On 02/10/2014 12:02 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
+1
I know I get caught with the real-world taking a day or two of time away from
getting RC1 ready to freeze, but we really should be allowing at least that long
for testing before pushing at this point.
Like the .la -> .so push, great move forward, but we should get a sign-off from
each of the active builders before pushing, or at least send a "I am about to
push X that might break Y, please test.."
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
heh,heh,heh,
sip4-tqt FTBFS, python-tqt FTBFS, tdeutils FTBFS,
>etc... I feel your pain... and share the bags under your eyes :-)
The point
being that FTBFS patches are being pushed lately without
everybody having an opportunity to test. "Works for me" is not a
good motto. I understand that somebody needs a patch to avoid
FTBFS. I get that. We all do. Yet FTBFS patches should be tested by
everybody involved.
Darrell
4015
days inactive
4015
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Darrell Anderson -
David C. Rankin