A new FTBFS every day

[Daniel van Vugt]

Fair point. So don't CI it and I will wear the burden of owning raring 
support, as I already offered to.


On 26/06/13 13:53, Robert Ancell wrote:
> This is the important point: if we put this into CI it wont just be your
> time spent - it will be everyone else having to change their branches to
> satisfy a GCC we're not requiring.
>
> --Robert
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Daniel van Vugt
> <daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com>>
> wrote:
>
>     Put it this way: I will waste more time waiting for builds on my
>     saucy machines, than I spend fixing the raring build failures (so I
>     can build on my faster raring machine).
>
>     And the fixes so far have been trivial. When they're not, I will
>     reconsider where my effort goes.
>
>
>
>     On 26/06/13 12:22, Robert Ancell wrote:
>
>         I do disagree that increased automation is better. In this case our
>         target platform is GCC 4.8 and slowing down to fix bugs in GCC
>         4.7 isn't
>         a worthwhile use of time. I appreciate there might be cases
>         where these
>         are genuine bugs that 4.8 is not detecting, but that seems more of a
>         problem in GCC than our code. Also, it seems highly likely for
>         us to use
>         a GCC 4.8 feature given we are already using modern C++ features.
>
>         --Robert
>
>
>         On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Daniel van Vugt
>         <daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com
>         <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com>
>         <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at __canonical.com
>         <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com>>>
>
>         wrote:
>
>              I doubt people would object to increased automation, unless
>         we start
>              needing language features missing in gcc-4.7.
>
>
>
>              On 26/06/13 10:49, Thomi Richards wrote:
>
>                  Hi Daniel,
>
>
>                  On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Daniel van Vugt
>                  <daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com
>         <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com>
>                  <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at __canonical.com
>         <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com>>
>                  <mailto:daniel.van.vugt@
>         <mailto:daniel.van.vugt@>__cano__nical.com <http://canonical.com>
>
>                  <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at __canonical.com
>         <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com>>>>
>
>                  wrote:
>
>
>                       Can we add raring CI support back in so these build
>                  problems get
>                       caught in time?
>
>
>                  I believe that's a question for me, and the answer is
>         "yes, we can".
>                  Unless there are any objections, I'll add raring as a
>         CI platform
>                  tomorrow (thereby giving the list 12 hours to object).
>
>
>                  Cheers,
>
>
>                  --
>                  Thomi Richards
>         thomi.richards at canonical.com <mailto:thomi.richards at canonical.com>
>                  <mailto:thomi.richards at __canonical.com
>         <mailto:thomi.richards at canonical.com>>
>                  <mailto:thomi.richards@
>         <mailto:thomi.richards@>__canon__ical.com <http://canonical.com>
>
>                  <mailto:thomi.richards at __canonical.com
>         <mailto:thomi.richards at canonical.com>>>
>
>
>              --
>              Mir-devel mailing list
>         Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>
>         <mailto:Mir-devel at lists.__ubuntu.com
>         <mailto:Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>>
>
>              Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>         https://lists.ubuntu.com/____mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
>         <https://lists.ubuntu.com/__mailman/listinfo/mir-devel>
>              <https://lists.ubuntu.com/__mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
>         <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel>>
>
>
>