[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: before checking in
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: before checking in |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:52:00 +0200 (IST) |
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, John Wiegley wrote:
> I work on a C++ compiler with so many #ifdef's, I calculated we could
> produce several hundred different compilers from our one source base.
> And yet, it IS possible to enforce the rule that whatever is in CVS
> should be able to build and pass regressions.
It's possible, but requires a lot of resources and time that most (if
not all) of Emacs developers cannot afford.
> Developers shouldn't have to test every configuration; that's what
> beta and pretesting are for. But the code should build and run for
> the person making the change before it's checked in.
I don't think we disagree on this one; your original request sounded much
more broad than this.
Still, there could be exceptions, like if a change is made which cannot
be tested (or even compiled) on the developer's platform. As a rule,
this should be avoided, but exceptions are possible, in practice.
People who use CVS should be prepared to deal with problems that stem
from this. By contrast, people who build official releases, do not (and
should not) expect such problems.
> It's just that whenever I see missing syntactic characters in a C file
> *checked in*, it makes me wonder.
If the relevant fragment is under an ifdef that didn't fire on the
developer's system, it's not unheard of.
- Re: before checking in, (continued)
- Re: before checking in, Gerd Moellmann, 2001/10/25
- Re: before checking in, Pavel JanÃk, 2001/10/25
- Re: before checking in, Richard Stallman, 2001/10/28
- Re: before checking in, Gerd Moellmann, 2001/10/28
- Re: before checking in, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/10/28
- Re: before checking in, Richard Stallman, 2001/10/29
- Re: before checking in, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/10/30
- Re: before checking in, John Wiegley, 2001/10/30
Re: before checking in, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/10/25