This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: source mgt....[_HAS_ gcc relevance]
- From: Tom Lord <lord at emf dot net>
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 04:54:58 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: source mgt....[_HAS_ gcc relevance]
- References: <10212161242.AA22973@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
but wouldn't it be nice if that were automated: so a developer
could hit the "try to test and merge" button before going home
for the night, coming back in the morning to either a commit
email or a list of test failures
I'm not sure I like that kind of automation because of the
potentially unknown delay in the testing process (what if the
queue that runs the tests got stuck). I'd want to be able to know
and control exactly *when* the change went in.
I think your worry is premature, but understandable. We're bumping up
against the limits of email.
It's hard to explain abstractions through specific instantiations, but
harder to explain (and be heard explaining) abstractions through
abstract language. So in forums like this, I think I tend to state
instances, and hope readers form the underlying abstractions for
themselves. I'm aiming for the SYNC! or "Aha!" experience.
So, I say "going home for the night, coming back in the morning" --
but there's a less specific abstraction behind that I'm pointing at.
Computers keep getting cheaper and faster. I think in a few short
years, we developers will each have tons of them for day-to-day work.
What Savannah does for the maddening crowd asynchronously and slowly,
you and I will have synchronously and quickly. (Which is a related
observation, if you think about it.)
-t