> > For example, when I did the fsfs transaction change, it broke with
> > Windows build. I would not have known.
In the days of the old testing tools (and before 1.0, when I joined),
we strongly urged committing committers to join svn-breakage@.
Nowadays, that's still an option, but you get all the SUCCESS mails.
If you want to receive FAIL-only notifications, you can subscribe to
the RSS feed provided by buildbot. That's what I do. Also gives a nice
overview of the most recent fails, when reading it through Google
Reader.
> It tests the HEAD revision, so typically between 20:00 and 24:00 CEST
> each build includes multiple changesets.
>
> This is one of the reasons why we originally decided against added the
> committer in CC. The other two being:
> - the builds also fail due to broken network connections between master
> and slave, which happens a lot (relatively speaking). Now we also
> include part of the log message in the email making it easier to filter
> out such failures so it's not much of an issue
> - fixing a build is not necessarily the responsibility of the original
> committer. I know this might not seem logical to some, but in the end I
> prefer to look at it as a shared responsibility. This also ensures that
> failed builds are solved soon, instead of people waiting and looking at
> the change committer.
Yes, I still think this was a good decision: I sometimes see failures
persist way longer than I'd hoped the build system would help resolve
them. I'd like to think, indeed, that we all are responsible and want
failures do be resolved asap, in order to have a correctly working
build to base your own work on...
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jun 30 20:52:19 2007