modular -> monolithic

[Andrew Oakley]

Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> On 20/01/2008, Andrew Oakley <andrew at ado.is-a-geek.net> wrote:
>> The reason for putting drivers back into the server tree seems to be
>> knowing when someone breaks a driver compile.  Surely we can find
>> breakages in the tree with a "continuous integration" type system?
> 
> I don't see how moving code from one place to another would make it
> better?.. Is Tinderbox
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinderbox_(software)) not an option?

I wasn't trying to suggest that we move code - I think we should stick
with a modular system.

I was trying to suggest a way to solve the problem people see with the
modular system (i.e. breakages can take a long time to find because few
people will build all of X) without going monolithic.

As far as I'm aware Tinderbox does do continuous integration for
Mozilla, but I think it is tied to CVS (although I may well be wrong, I
havn't looked into it).