Hi Michael,
2013/6/25 Bálint Réczey <balint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi Michael,
>
> 2013/6/24 Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> ...
>>>> The current process puts responsibility on the core developer who
>>>> commits a change. Personally, I don't think it is bad if this breaks
>>>> the build on some buildbot, I only this it is bad if the committer
>>>> doesn't care. This worked out pretty well in the past, I think. I only
>>>> run the head version of wireshark and can usually build it (thanks to the Mac OS X buildbots).
>>>> If a core developer didn't want to take responsibility for a patch, he
>>>> could contact others to get feedback on questions. This also worked in
>>>> the past since you contacted people who also are interested in the subject.
>>> I'm generally satisfied with the quality of trunk and I'm proud to be part of the project.
>>> I also think if we could break trunk even less often, it would be even better and Gerrit would help that and would also help discussing the patches.
>>>
>>>> The same responsibility applies for changes being compiled by the
>>>> buildbots. Each such change comes from a core developer. I'm
>>>> hesitating to allow an arbitrary patch to compile on the buildbots
>>>> where we have no one being responsible for it in any way. Some of the
>>>> buildbots run older software, some of them are not hardened in any way.
>>> If all the buildbots are running a newly cloned VM and limits network usage of the VM, I think we can be safe.
>> If we can change the buildbots running like that, you might be true. However,
>> the current way the Mac OS X buildbots are running is different. The versions
>> running currently on the buildbots are Leopard (PPC) and Snow Leopard (Intel)
>> and would only allow the server versions to be virtualised. That would mean
>> that we upgrade the buildbots to at least Lion...
> Yes, this is a severe limitation of older OS X versions.
>
> The solution could be limiting some tests to run only changes after integrating
> them to the target branches based on time needed to run them or for other
> reasons like this license problem.
I have updated the proposal to note those exceptions.
Cheers,
Balint
