Release testing and the relationship between 'bzr selftest' and plugins
vila+bzr at canonical.com
Sat Mar 17 16:11:57 UTC 2012
>>>>> Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> writes:
> Am 16/03/12 17:11, schrieb Vincent Ladeuil:
>> >> The osx installer (and the windows installer too AFAIK) has a script to
>> >> download from a branch (tip) or a tag or a revid, so it's just a matter
>> >> of providing either a branch (during betas) or a tag for stable
>> >> releases.
>> > We still had out of date plugins in the installer, though.
>> Yeah, the process is still not polished enough :-/
>> Ideally, at least osx and windows, should share their scripts (or
>> release definitions) so we can update it in a single place.
>> More and people are submitting merge proposals just for bumping which
>> version of a plugin should be packaged.
>> I think that's the good trend and we should probably help it becoming
>> the official way to get packaged.
> Do you mean that plugin authors should submit updates to the
Wouldn't that be a perfect testbed for nested trees ?
Each one of us can have its own bzr with its own set of plugins as
nested trees, all different but being able to be merged from one
Just a thought...
> I've updated the versions of bzr-svn/bzr-git in the installers a
> couple of times, but I would really rather stay away from this. It
> takes time (and releasing already takes up enough time) and I
> don't have the environment to test my changes in.
Yeah, *you* (as every plugin author) cannot test enough (even under you
shower ;) but you *can* say: hey, I've tested this and that's what I'd
like to be packaged, can somebody out there give it a go ?
More information about the bazaar