qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nuno Santos <nsan...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Continuous Build Server. Was: NEED HELP: getting the trunk back in order
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:19:43 GMT
Rupert Smith wrote:
> The only condition they asked for is that we put an acknowledgement on
> the project web site.
> If RedHat are going to supply a box or two (need Windows and Linux),
> available on the internet, that would be ideal. I was thinking of
> getting it running here and figuring out if I can publish a results
> page to the Wiki, that would be a start anyway. Can add email spamming
> later.

Our original plan was for an internal build/test machine, which could 
email status of an svn-based build to any interested qpid developers. 
I'm not certain about our lab policies but I don't think we would be 
able to make it an external facing machine available for general project 
use, this is something that I'll need to follow up with Carl and our lab 
manager.

Will also need to check regarding the licensing issue... our plan was to 
use CruiseControl but I see in the chart that you mentioned -- very 
useful, btw -- that it doesn't directly support "make", so we have to 
see if we can somehow integrate the C++ build with CruiseControl, or opt 
for a different continuous build tool.

Nuno

> On 3/6/07, Robert Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 on the free license - but what are the conditions on its use?  
>> Obviously
>> any continuous build system will have to be hosted on some equipment.  
>> How
>> many installations is the license offer good for?  If an instance is 
>> to be
>> hosted inside the company which employs one of the contributors what 
>> are the
>> implications...
>>
>> I have discussed offline with a couple of the guys from RedHat that they
>> will be having their own continuous build machine, which they could
>> configure to mail the group with build/test failures.  We only want one
>> continuous build machine doing this or we'll be spamming ourselves
>> unnecessarily.  On the other hand the RedHat guys may not want to go 
>> the the
>> expense of hosting tests on other platforms / operating systems :-) 
>> things
>> that might be more important to those of us who work in a heterogeneous
>> environment.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob
>>
>> On 06/03/07, Rupert Smith <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I have tried out a few different build servers. I started by looking
>> > at this feature matrix (probably not entirely complete or up to date):
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> http://damagecontrol.codehaus.org/Continuous+Integration+Server+Feature+Matrix 
>>
>> >
>> > As you can see there are two that have more green ticks than the
>> > others. Anthill Pro and Viewtier Parabuild. I tried both. Anthill Pro
>> > looks very good (maven build running on my machine, configured in 18
>> > minutes!). Parabuild looked pretty awfull.
>> >
>> > Anthill Pro have offered to give us a free licence as they do this for
>> > open source projects. The Apache Geronimo project has already set the
>> > precedent by also using Anthill Pro 3. They've had their own debate,
>> > around the subject of wether or not they should be using non-free,
>> > non-open source software and whether or not using it will force people
>> > building from a checkout to also use it. Read the debate here:
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200612.mbox/ajax/%3c18073DCE-7011-41D0-877F-45DD8F8CA1B8@planet57.com%3e

>>
>> >
>> > To summarize:
>> >
>> > It won't force people to be dependant on anthill, because the build
>> > server and build system are seperate things. The build system is
>> > maven, make, msbuild etc. All anthill does is call it periodically to
>> > do the build. The build system will still need to be maintained and
>> > kept in working order for every day devlopment activity from the
>> > command line.
>> >
>> > As for non-free, non-os software. We already use Jira, Confluence, not
>> > to mention MsBuild and Visual Studio, which kind of takes the moral
>> > argument out of that point of view.
>> >
>> > I'd like to propose that we accept Urban Code's kind offer of a free
>> > licence. Their product is the only one which can do a fully automated
>> > build over multiple languages and operating systems, call our test
>> > scripts and collate the results.
>> >
>> > Rupert
>> >
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message