Re: How portable is it ? (was: [DotGNU]Embedding Portable.NET)

[Erik van der Poel]

Gopal V wrote:
> 
> That is an accountability tool .... (when you have more than 10
> ... explosion ....)  . Since we don't have 10 people (scarcely 2)
> on the VM/Compiler side of business , I don't think we can use
> Tinderbox .....

Rhys (and you, and hopefully others, later) could use tinderbox to see
if any of their check-ins broke the Mac build, HP build, etc. (I.e. OS's
that you don't have, but that other people have made available to the
tinderbox system.)

> The ideal solution is distribute the work load as rhys has done here.

If people are willing to make their machines available, you can have the
machines do this automatable work.

Note that red on tinderbox means the build broke, and that orange means
one of the tests failed.

> Also the Tinderbox is an effort to place the blame on the erring
> developer in a bunch of developers .....

Or to blame an OS for being too different... :-)

"Blame" is such a harsh word. Think of tinderbox as a tool that helps
you catch problems early. You can narrow down the bug search to a
certain check-in or set of check-ins.

> But once we have more that one developer on the compiler/vm regularly
> we could think of a Tinderbox.

Well, yes, tinderbox is even more valuable when you have more than one
developer. Tinderbox might even get more developers interested in
DotGNU.

Erik