On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Michal Hrusecky wrote:
Robert Schweikert - 11:42 2.12.13 wrote:
On 12/02/2013 07:16 AM, Adrian Schr?ter wrote:
Am Sonntag, 1. Dezember 2013, 08:32:47 schrieb Robert Schweikert:
On 11/28/2013 08:49 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote: ... The staging model will not catch adverse interactions reliably. The reason is that by definition the staging tree is always out of date, unless the target tree is frozen and after one staging tree is accepted all other staging trees get rebuilt. This is not conducive to parallel development.
It depends how you run it. If you have large enough Staging projects, I think we can build them entirely and merge in factory. Afterwards we to wait for the other staging projects that right.
But it is a question how many and therefore how large staging projects we have.
Yes, but larger staging projects imply unrelated things having to wait for each other.
Well, unrelated things shouldn't go into same staging project...
Lets use a simple example. Lets say we have a staging tree that has Perl and Python in it. Developer A works on Perl stuff and developer B works on Python stuff.
Shouldn't happen unless Python for some strange reason depend on perl and vice versa :-D
At least Python build-depends on perl as perl is in Base:build (it gets
pulled into every build root).
Richard.
--
Richard Biener