[Rebuild] Tests of rebuild process - we need your input and help

[Simon Poole]

Am 23.03.2012 10:39, schrieb Dermot McNally:
>
>
> It's great that this is in motion too. What would be useful is early
> clarity on whether this will list clean or dirty objects. I'm drawn
> towards a dirty list for two reasons:
>
> a) It will (I hope) be smaller
> b) It will render the dirty changeset list named above unnecessary (at
> least for the suspected UMP problem cases)
>
> The need for object level support for exceptions got onto the
> development agenda fairly late in the day but Matt has already created
> tests for the case. These tests could probably do with a few more eyes
> on them so anybody who hasn't seen them yet, please do look and
> comment.
>

Not so much a technical question, but one of policy: are we  going to
throw out individual CT acceptance then for all of PL? I would have
assumed that we would have only considered an object clean/dirty list
for such accounts that had accepted the CTs. The whole point of the
effort being to allow contributors to agree even though they have
tainted data in their contributions and not to maximize the amount of
data we can import from UMP.


Simon