On 11/11/2013 04:39 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> On 11/08/13 10:09, Toralf Förster wrote:
>> In the past few weeks I run more often than expected after a "svn
>> update" into an build error, mostly obvious coding style issues / typos
>> / "treat warning as errors" were the culprit.
>>
>> This let me wondering, if there isn't a hook in the central svn server
>> to reject such check-in attempts ?
>
> I contemplated mentioning this a couple of weeks ago after you sent a
> mail to the list about the current SVN building. In general, we'll know
> pretty within a couple of hours (the time for the buildbots to actually
> do the builds) if we (or someone) break(s) the build. And someone will
> fix it soon enough; usually giving it a few hours is sufficient for
> someone to fix it.
>
>
Yes, in my experience a subsequent "svn update" often brought the fix -
I appreciate such quick fixes (and FWIW I'm just playing with wireshark
and run few rand/fuzzy tests)
But I just compared it in my mind to the linux kernel policy to have at
least a compile-able system to not break bisecting.
--
MfG/Sincerely
Toralf Förster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3