[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: Lieven Govaerts <svnlgo_at_mobsol.be>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:45:45 +0100

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> report".
The execution time of tests is (somewhat) visible in Buildbot's
waterfall view, but I don't see that as a compelling feature. Are
there any specific features in Hudson that you'd want that are not in
>> 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?

Good point. I expect us to stick with our current buildbot slaves for
quite some time - unless one of the maintainers wants his PC back
obviously - so this won't be much of a problem. However, I guess other
projects won't be very happy if we start monopolizing all bots.

>> 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
> once).

Well, I'll be the bottleneck in this little project, so don't worry
about that. I just wanted to get the ball rolling so we can see what
needs to be done before we do such a migration and set up a plan
together with ASF infra.


Received on 2009-11-15 21:46:13 CET

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