Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 16:36:38 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: rkw@dataplex.net, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <10860.841793798@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Sep 1996 12:02:35 PDT." <199609031902.MAA04818@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There are writer locks which you are not permitted to release until > a full build succeeds. But of course, that's shot down each time it > is brought up. Because it's essentially meaningless. A full build succeeds *where*, Terry? On the engineer's personal box? I can't count the number of build errors I've seen corrected with a sheepish "sorry guys, it worked on *my* box!" follow-up commit. Since engineers will always mess with their own boxes and the source tree still has far too many external dependencies to consider this a reasonable risk (down, Richard! :-), the distributed model can't work yet. That leaves one with the idea of doing it on a "build server" which is kept ideologically and morally pure, an increasingly hypothetical machine we're talking about here since it'd have to be fast enough to not become a choke-point and administered well enough that developers had various mechanisms available for "signing up" for the next build if one was already in progress. Not freefall, that's for sure. Anyway, the real answer is to fix the source tree and everyone here knows it. If one could build /usr/src completely "stand-alone" starting with a small reference-set of bootstrap binaries, and where these should come from or how they should be generated is a matter on which I'd welcome some debate, then a developer *could* check in changes after a certain degree of local testing and be far more assured that they'll work for everyone else. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10860.841793798>