On 11/06/15 07:44, David Ostrovsky wrote:
On Wed, Wed Jun 10 12:22:53 PDT 2015, Norbert Thiebaud wrot
All that being said, none of that matter if the culture does not
follow. no amount of CI can make people care.. what set the tone is
the core developer group, the rest of us looks around how it is done
and emulate the behavior.
Nothing causes more pain, frustration and disappointment than
unfulfilled expectations.
I expect that master is always green. My definition of green is:
$ make check
with --enable-werror is passing on all three platforms: Linux|Mac|Win
64.
As a "green" developer, I'd second that. Okay, I'm not used to using
VCS's (my programming experience is on old systems that typically didn't
have VCS available - cheapskate bosses), but even back yonks ago, stuff
shouldn't leave the developer's local workspace until it actually works.
And as a git novice, "master" is the git branch that everybody knows about.
I thought that the same expectation is _consensus_ among core LO
developers. My definition of core LO developers: payed developer who is
working full time on LO.
So as master was broken again (my definition of broken is compiling
and/or linking was broken on some platforms, not to mention passing of
tests) I entered #libreoffice-dev channel on freenode and asked:
_david_: "Master is broken again. Is that too much to expect that the
master is green?"
One of LO core developers (see my definition of "core developers" above)
answered:
_lo_core_developer_: "Yes, it's. The purpose of master is to be always
broken."
That's boolshit, of course. Fix that mindset first, before saying or
doing anything else.
Let's have a branch called "lo-next", or "bleeding", or something like
that. I don't have access to Mac, and don't build on Win. How hard is it
to push all changes to "bleeding", and then either cherry-pick or bulk
push all changes to master when they pass on all relevant test boxes.
Cheers,
Wol
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.