On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:53:48 -0600, Rene Rivera wrote
Jeff Garland wrote:
Do we even have a way of tracking the check-ins? That might be a good first step. I notice that sourceforge seems to be generating some sort of email when I check-in, but I don't know of a way to subscribe to the changelist.
Yes we do. Dave and I, long ago, set up those emails SF sends so we could get Buildbot to work. So if we track CVS changes to the individual builds we can tell who and what breaks a build. Even though I'm still working on the buildbot here's a sneak peek.. http://build.redshift-software.com:9990/
Very cool! No doubt buildbot will be a great asset -- when do you think it will be ready to 'go production'?
others run several. So depending on when you check-in, it takes up to a couple days to really see the results of all platforms/compilers. The only way I see us getting closer to the ideal is more machines really dedicated to just Boost testing...
Or going to an active system like Buildbot.
I don't think the existence of Buildbot solves all of our resource issues. I would expect only a limited number of the current regression testers will be able to install and use Buildbot -- I'm certain there will be firewall and other issues for some that just stop this from happening. Plus if it takes 5 hours to run a Boost build you will still have a long delay before you find out if something is broken. For most developers they would like to see a library focused rebuild, which for most could happen in minutes. As an example, since almost nothing in Boost depends on date-time it's very hard for me to break all of Boost. So rerunning all of the Boost regression for a date-time check-in is mostly a waste of resources. We've also had several previous discussions on other things that are pushing up the need for additional resources including: Boost is just plain getting bigger, need for non-debug regression tests, double testing for dll non-dll versions of linked libs, etc. Jeff