On 25/04/06, jiho <jo.irisson@...400...> wrote:
On 25 Apr 2006, at 09:48 , Ben Fowler wrote:
On 25/04/06, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 02:48:35PM +0100, Ben Fowler wrote:
[ big snip] Again, we should be doing this ...
the server is just a hosting place so I build the nightlies on my computer (not as regularly as I would like to I am afraid) and I uploaded them to the server afterwards.
We could just make a rule that if one of us saw that the deliverable offered for download was more than a few days old, and there was a 'good' build available then it should be uploaded, with a note as to who built it.
BTW the Bug Report "[ 1447658 ] [WEB SITE] Mac OSX development binaries won't download" seems to be WORKSFORME, in that the im ages can be downloaded.
What do you mean by smoke testing?
Two things, either
1) An series of quick tests that a dev can do to be sure that the build is good. or 2) An assertion that the tests concerned have been done.
For a long time, my smoke test was to create a new document, make a star and a rectangle and perfom a path union on those two objects. If this worked I was happy. If it didn't I knew that something was definitely wrong. Obviously each dev will have their own choice of tests, and it is best that the test actually done is in an area where development is taking place, but it is more important that the smoke test is quick and simple so that there is no temptation to neglect it.
Ben.