Re: [Tsp-devel] Continuous integration ?

[Eric Noulard]

2007/2/21, Stephane GALLES <address@hidden>:
> Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> > On 2/20/07, Stephane GALLES <address@hidden> wrote:
> [...]
> >> ...In order to catch the compilation problems as soon as they
> >> appear, would anybody be interested in a basic cruisecontrol setup
> >> for TSP ? (at least to test a fresh cmake+make when something
> >> is checked in, and maybe later, with some sanity test)

> > That sounds interesting. How much time does it take to develop?

Yes I agree this is a good idea.
But I need to read some doc in order to fully understand how
it works. Since....

> >>
> >> I don't have a continuous integration server up 24/24, but
> >> I can offer to write the cruisecontrol configuration file
> >> and the build script adapter and someone could deploy a cruisecontrol
> >> configuration in a Tomcat on a real build server.

I don't think we should really a "build server"

Each TSP developer box may be used as a build server
which sends report at the end of the build loop which has
run locally.

I really don't know if cruisecontrol is supposed to support this
but seems to me more easy to obtain than a networked
build server.

We may open a tsp-build mailing list which receives build
loops reports from any (but identified) build server.

Stéphane,
Do you think cruisecontrol may be configured that way?
Or did I miss something?

> But thinking about it, I've already use other continuous integration
> tools that are easier to setup that cruisecontrol (cruisecontrol is
> a very versatil tool, but its conf files are sometimes hard to write and
> read).
>
> In particular :
> http://luntbuild.javaforge.com/ (very nice web GUI)
>
> > Not to
> > mention a build server could act as a subversion server ;)
>
> Exactly :)

That's just where I do not understand.
Our configuration server is Savannah which surely won't be
a build server anytime soon no?

> It is even a very usual set up. (Actually that's what this dedicated
> Linux distro does,  http://buildix.thoughtworks.com/,  but only for a
> LAN, not a WAN, as the security is not managed).

I understand that but I think it does not fits what we may afford
TODAY since we have no "networked server" for installing such tools
unless anybody here wants to offer such access :))

--
Erk