On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 11:02 +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote: > I'm proposing to automate gcc's bootstrap & regtest: for each mail > sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], if 'From' is in gcc-developpers and 'body' > contains a patch against some branch (ie. if it fails to apply to a > branch, just drop it and warn the user), enqueue it for validation. > The main server can be some script that monitors the availability of > cpu ressources and that distributes the patches for validation. The > answer can be a mail with just "passed witout regressions", or "patch > causes regressions: <list of testcases that failed>". > > Bandwidth usage: size of incoming mail patch + size of answer + "cvs > update -dP" every morning.
Looks good. I think it would be slightly more secure to have people commit the patch with a unique name in some access-controlled CVS (either some subdir of the GCC one or a new local one) than relying on email "From" fields at the cost of minor inconvenience. Also for the cvs update, I assume one of the machine will do an rsync of the whole CVS repository to factor external bandwidth cost and it enables some binary search stuff at no external bandwidth cost. On IRC, I was reminded that some developpers have machine that are less powerfull than the old donated servers or don't have x86 access, so they may use them to test their patch before submission. People in this case, please send me a private email so that I'm able to count the number of developpers that could benefit just from the access to some machine to do GCC work. Laurent
