<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Dan Kegel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dank@kegel.com">dank@kegel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> Converting the wpkg scripts to appinstall doesn't<br>
> seem like that difficult of a task, mostly just time consuming.<br>
<br>
</div>It's harder than it sounds to actually get<br>
a few useful app tests written. �Plus there'll<br>
be some work writing up and fixing the bugs<br>
it uncovers.<br><div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>So then do you think it's a worthy proposal to just work on wpkg scripts? I have no problem working on this, and writting up/trying to fix bugs that are uncovered. I just didn't think that by itself it would be good enough to be accepted as a GSoC project.<br>
<br>�</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
> That is why I thinking working on tying it into <a href="http://test.winehq.org" target="_blank">test.winehq.org</a> is more worthy.<br>
> I still think tying appinstall and patchwatcher together would be<br>
> beneficial and allow people submitting patches to see where<br>
> regressions pop up in software, and to see<br>
> what new software works with each submitted patch.<br>
> Perhaps a project of implementing all of this and adding wpkg scripts would be accepted?<br>
<br>
</div>Arjun Comar is going to propose something similar, but using Buildbot<br>
as the point of integration.<br>
<font color="#888888">- Dan<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>I look forward to seeing his proposal. Will he be bring patchwatcher back to life, but in buildbot form?<br><br><br><br>-Seth Shelnutt<br>