unity-dev team mailing list archive

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <mikkel.kamstrup@xxxxxxxxx>]

*cough* *cough* jhbuild! *cough*

;-)


On 4 January 2013 09:05, Didier Roche <didier.roche@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Le 03/01/2013 04:38, Stephen M. Webb a écrit :
>
> On 01/02/2013 09:43 PM, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
>
>  Did the compiler really give a warning? As far as I can tell, Nux, Unity and Compiz already use "-Wall -Werror".
>
> If mistakes still slip past gcc (and they do) then I recommend making your code compatible with clang because it gives
> more and better warnings/errors. We've done this for lp:compiz but I'm not sure if Nux and Unity are clang-friendly yet.
>
>  The compiler is unlikely to have given a warning in production builds since Unity, at least, does not compile with
> -Wextra (or -Wunused).  My guess is this level of warning was not enabled because of the sheer amount of noise it
> generates (which is itself a signal that should not be ignored).  We have it on our list as a low-priority item to be
> able to build with -Wextra enabled but it's hard to justify thousands of lines of code churn when expanding and
> improving overall unit test coverage will give us a better return on investment of our limited resources.
>
> I believe that a proper test harness and test coverage would have caught the regression.  Almost all of the test cases I
> have seen going in to Unity in the last few months have been to verify new functionality or regression tests for bug
> fixes, and that's an improvement over past practices, but without a validation test suite we're still using the Edit and
> Pray methodology.  The start of a new calendar year seems like a good time to start a renewed push for Quality in Unity.
>  I am going to make expanded test coverage a priority part of the desktop Unity polish for 13.04 and I think the
> investment will pay off going forward with other form factors.
>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Yeah, we need to push back quality at the heart of our process.
>
> Just back from vacations, I have the unpleasant surprise to notice that
> unity fails to build in the staging ppa since 2012-12-19 and that more than
> 7 merges were done in between without fixing it first (or reverting the
> faulty merge):
> https://launchpad.net/~unity-team/+archive/staging/+packages?field.name_filter=unity&field.status_filter=superseded&field.series_filter=raring<https://launchpad.net/%7Eunity-team/+archive/staging/+packages?field.name_filter=unity&field.status_filter=superseded&field.series_filter=raring>
> I guess it's failing due to the precompiled header:
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~unity-team/unity/trunk/revision/3002. Unity
> is built in parallel in the ppa, that's maybe why it passed the merger step.
>
> Mirv is now looking and is taking action to get that under control again,
> but please please, when you do merge something, track the builds and
> install your branch locally to check for side-effects. For this one, if we
> couldn't get that fixed easily, the quickest path at the time would have
> been to revert ASAP the branch until we find a good fix and not having an
> unreleasable unity state as we have right now.
>
> Cheers,
> Didier
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-dev
> Post to     : unity-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-dev
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>