[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [RFC] Move buildbot master to ASF infrastructure

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:46:43 -0500

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Lieven Govaerts <svnlgo_at_mobsol.be> wrote:

> while we're migrating mailing lists and the svn repo to the ASF
> infrastructure, let's discuss what we want to do with the buildbot.
> The ASF provides 4 different build services (see
> http://ci.apache.org/) and Buildbot (the one we use) is one of them.
> Based on a long chat with Gavin McDonald from ASF infra on IRC last
> week, I propose to integrate our Buildbot master into the ASF's. This
> has some (obvious) benefits:
> - although our buildbot master has been stable since we migrated it to
> Justin's Mac, I assume the ASF infrastructure team can do a better job
> of hosting and maintaining such setup in a secure environment.

+1 in general

> - ASF's buildbot already has Ubuntu and Windows server 2008 slaves
> (and according to Gavin also Windows XP 64 bit and Solaris) and there
> are plans to add more. There's no Mac yet, but we have one in our
> setup.

In the case of Windows, do they also have Visual Studio and all the
extras needed to actually build SVN?

> - it has more features (http://ci.apache.org/buildbot.html), and -
> more importantly - the maintainers are open (and have time) to improve
> the setup based on our requests.
> Sticking with buildbot allows us to keep the existing buildbot slaves,
> if the owners choose to do so. Also, out of the 4 available options it
> seems best fitted to our use case (C code, custom test scripts and
> builds on multiple platforms).

Given our familiarity with it, I think it makes sense to stick with
buildbot. That said, I like Hudson and we have done some work
recently so that our build and test can integrate nicely. For
example, Hudson can display the test results a lot more nicely and it
graphs things like the execution time that can help spot trends. I
personally prefer buildbots red/green model over Hudson's "weather

> There are some things that aren't really clear yet:
> - the ASF buildbot is shared for 20+ projects. I know slaves can be
> reserved for certain projects, but what's the impact of building
> projectA first, and then build subversion on the same slave.
> - do we use slave's system libraries, or do we need to build a
> specific set of versions of libraries used only for the subversion
> builds.
> - the waterfall view is shared between all projects and buiders
> (http://ci.apache.org/waterfall). Is that okay for us? Or should we
> work on a Subversion specific view.
> - if there are project + slave specific build problems, what are our
> options to get the needed logs/info and fix the issues?

I really wonder about all these things as well. Not to mention just
that the long build and test time for Subversion is different than a
lot of the typical Java projects that can do all this in a few
minutes. Our buildbots cannot even keep up with our activity, how
well will this work in a massively shared model where there are a lot
of projects all on the same master?

> So, thoughts? Remarks?

With everything going on, my only comment would be to slow down. I do
not see any reason to rush into this (too many changes happening at

Mark Phippard
Received on 2009-11-15 17:46:59 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.