"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
> It seems to me that auto testing of the tentatively updated trunk before
> final commitment would avoid the 'who checked in test-breaking code'
> messages that appear here occasionally.
I don't think there's any fundamental impossibility in setting up such
a system for CVS, and am pretty certain there's not for SVN.
> But it requires that the update + test-suite time be less than the
> average inter-update interval.
Indeed.
> The current bottleneck in Python development appears to be patch reviews.
And acting on those reviews...
> So merely making submission and commitment easier will not help much.
I'm not sure, I think it could help quite a bit.
> An alternative to more reviewers is more automation to make more
> effective use of existing reviewers. (And this might also encourage
> more reviewers.) The Launchpad group seems to be ahead in this
> regard, but I don't know how much this is due to using bazaar. In
> any case, ease of improving the review process might be a criterion
> for choosing a source code system. But I leave this to ML.
>
> *Other things being equal*, using a state-of-the-art development system
> written in Python to develop Python would be a marketing plus.
I think the words "stable" and "reliable" should be in there somewhere
:)
I don't get the impression bazaar-ng is there yet.
Cheers,
mwh
--
Unfortunately, nigh the whole world is now duped into thinking that
silly fill-in forms on web pages is the way to do user interfaces.
-- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4