On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:16:27AM +0100, Mike Ralphson wrote:
> Which branch(es) would it be most useful on which to have this
> automated build/test cycle?
I would think maint, master, and next, but with next as the least
important. I think Junio generally tests maint and master before
publishing, but presumably not always next (as there was test breakage
in next earlier today).
> Although the list of tags might get slightly unwieldy (i.e. the top
> commit will gain a lot of tags if all is well), with a sensible naming
> convention, these tags could be pushed to a central repo (a regularly
> updated clone of git.git) allowing easy visibility of the current
> state of the 'build collective'.
>
> Something like {intials}_{uname info}_{branch}_KNOWN_{BUILDING|PASSING} ?
I have started tagging my auto-builds as you suggest. It should be easy
enough to push to a repo.or.cz repository. Although I'm not sure of the
utility of auto-publishing this information. Who is going to look at it?
I had assumed a workflow more like "it passes 99% of the time; in the
remaining 1%, the cron job kicks off a message to the owning user, who
then investigates and/or writes a bug report to the list."
That implies a little bit of expertise and work from the user owning the
build, but:
- presumably it won't happen very frequently
- they are probably the only person with the resources to diganose and
fix, anyway, since they are the ones with access to the platform.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
