On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
>> For the time being, the Ruby build step and tests have been commented
>> out of the relevant scripts.
>>
>> I think there is value in running a bot on a stock (albeit currently
>> beta) install of a popular Linux distribution. We don't control our
>> users' machines, and pretty soon many of them will be upgrading to the
>> latest Ubuntu. A not-insignificant-number of those people will
>> discover their Subversion Ruby scripts don't work anymore. This is
>> unfortunate, and the sooner we can find these problems, the better.
>> Running a bot in this type of environment is one way to do so. (Plus,
>> I haven't committed a line of code in 3 months: I have to do
>> _something_ to feel more useful than just kibitzing on dev@. :) )
>>
>> You are, of course, welcome to run yet another bot with its own
>> configuration, but I recommend we still use this one.
>
> Well I agree there's value in that configuration, since as you rightly
> point out it does alert us to upcoming issues. Coming from a
> continuous delivery workplace here recently I was thinking that the
> primary purpose of the buildbots was to alert us to breakage after
> code changes. If the environment the build bot is running in is
> changing out from under it, you can't tell at a glance that the build
> was broken due to a code change or an environmental change on the
> build bot.
Good point: it does require extra dev time to answer that question in
the case of false negatives.
Incidentally, I'm still seeing swig-pl build errors on that bot. From
reading above, I thought these were addressed. Is that correct?
-Hyrum
Received on 2012-09-25 12:30:04 CEST