Re: Ports & Packages infrastructure & feature import. (fwd)

[Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden%gmail.com@localhost>]

Wouldn't it be easier to rely on experienced developers in
that area to review your diff ?

I already saw some commit messages like that.

ATF's use is becoming mandatory. Can't the same be done
with systematic peer review of non-trivial changes ?

2011/9/3 Marko Schütz Schmuck <MarkoSchuetz%web.de@localhost>:
> At Sat, 3 Sep 2011 09:09:31 +0300,
> Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:15:49AM -0400, Marko Schütz Schmuck wrote:
>> > It might also be a good idea to automate integration testing before
>> > committing and reject failed integrations. There is an IMNSHO
>> > excellent tool in Aegis (aegis.sf.net).
>>
>> I agree that (automated) "continuous integration" is a good idea. However,
>> I doubt whether it scales to projects with several millions of lines of code.
>
> There are relatively few lines that change with each change set and
> there are few targets that will be impacted. The files generated from
> a build prior to integration of the change are kept in the project
> directory. The build tool needs to be capable of using a path (VPATH)
> to search for files or alternatively the build directory can be
> populated with links to the changeset's baseline. Also, not all tests
> are run automatically for each changeset: the developer specifies and
> submits the tests that the changeset must satisfy (and that the
> previous version must fail). Of course, regression tests are also
> possible and aegis can suggest regression tests based on the files in
> the changeset and the tests that were run for these files in the past.
>
> Best ragards,
>
> Marko
>



-- 
`` Real men run current !''