Someone in the middle said: ... > >If we're really concerned about not building ... I think that's key. We build a lot more stuff, a lot more often, than I think most people actually need or use. Which means we wind up waiting for builds to complete that nobody will ever use. I think the natural progression of things is: stage 1. coded up, ready to share, not ready to build or test. (might be being built out of stream, etc.) early stage of collaboration, code review, etc. [ I think people currently do this in various different ways... ] stage 2. ready to test / build / for a LIMITED set of architectures (often just one.) start of testing, don't need all architectures yet. OR, failed on one architecture, want to just test *that* architecture. [ We don't currently have a way to do this, but I bet at least half of our builds could work this way. ] stage 3. ready to test / build / for ALL architectures. about to commit fix to master / general distribution, known to work on one architecture, but want to actually do the thorough test on everything. Doing this by special branch names seems a bit clumsy to me. I suppose we could have "nobuild-FOO", "ubuntuonly-FOO", "buildeverywhere-FOO". But it seems more natural to me to have some kind of prefix matching/configuration thing that the builder could use to the same effect. Then progressing wip-FOO from stage 2 to stage 3 could be just a matter of the programmer adjusting the filter for the "wip-foo" from "ubuntuonly" to "buildeverywhere", then the automation building the identical source on the other architectures (and *not* rebuilding on the original architecture for which perfectly good builds don't need to be repeated.) -Marcus Watts -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
