Release testing and the relationship between 'bzr selftest' and plugins

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> 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 We still had out of date plugins in the installer, though.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
    > installers?

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
another...

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 ?

      Vincent