On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:22:33 +0000 Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 05:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 16:58:26 +0000 > > Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> On 12/03/2016 05:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 13:13:36 +0000 > >>> Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 12/03/2016 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:35:32 +0100 > >>>>> Patrice Clement <monsie...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Friday 02 Dec 2016 14:10:27, Michał Górny wrote : > >>>>>>> Hi, everyone. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects being > >>>>>>> started by individuals in Gentoo. In fact, so many different projects > >>>>>>> that I've forgotten who was working on most of them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I know that Toralf is doing tinderboxing for most of the stuff. > >>>>>>> What other projects do we have there? What is their status? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is there anything we could try to integrate with pull requests to get > >>>>>>> a better testing? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>> Michał Górny > >>>>>>> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Continuous integration is all the rage these days and tinderboxing is > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> obvious way to go concerning Gentoo. AFAIK, Toralf is the only > >>>>>> contributor > >>>>>> doing tinderboxing out of his own will. In reality, we should have a > >>>>>> team of > >>>>>> devs looking after our own tinderboxes instead of relying on the > >>>>>> community. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm wondering if we could start a donation campain for this project > >>>>>> and ask > >>>>>> people if they've got spare machines laying around. I know a lot of > >>>>>> folks are > >>>>>> reading this mailing list so maybe asking on gentoo-dev first for a > >>>>>> start would > >>>>>> be appropriate. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hardware is not the problem. Lack of software is. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Have you considered using openQA[1] like openSUSE[2] and Fedora[3] do > >>>> instead of reinventing the wheel? > >>>> > >>>> [1] http://open.qa/ > >>>> [2] https://openqa.opensuse.org/ > >>>> [3] https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/ > >>> > >>> Do you by any chance happen to know how it maps to our needs? > >>> At a first glance it seems quite tangential. > >>> > >> > >> Depends on what you want to test. I guess openQA would be a very good > >> solution if you want to test a snapshot of the tree against the most > >> common scenarios for example > >> > >> - todays snapshot with plasma5 > >> - todays snapshot with gnome3 > >> - todays snapsnot with lxqt > >> - ... > >> - todays snapshot with a few tests against popular console packages > >> * can gcc build small C test files? > >> * does bash work? > >> * does coreutils popular tools work as expected? > >> > >> > >> Having such scenarios in place is probably a more realistic testing > >> approach than simply build everything with random USE flags just for the > >> sake of build coverage. > > > > I'm looking for something I could tell 'build this package on this > > commit (pull request)', optionally with some USE flags adjustment. > > And I'd like it to be fast, i.e. don't bother rebuilding whole KDE > > libraries every time a pull request requiring them is updated. > > > > I think that both approaches are valuable then. We may need different > set of software solutions though. Wouldn't, for example, Jenkins or > buildbot do what you want on the per-package PR testing? And then you > could use openQA to test the entire tree as a whole. In case I didn't made it clear enough: I'm looking for something that's adjusted for Gentoo already, and can do whatever needs to be done using Gentoo package managers. I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel. I don't have the time for that. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpzmW72Gihth.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
