Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > > That does not follow, if all that is needed is a ssh key on the > > builder? > > no what is need is creating a special 'bot user' in gerrit in the > right group, and associate a ssh key with that user... > that is an admin task. (no cannot be done from the web... nor should > it be desirable) > I see - so the overhead is on TDF's side, not on the tinderbox sponsor.
> Master-slave require the master to have control on the box... to > access it remotely and decide what run and when on the slave... > that is not a viable option for volunteer boxes. > It could be pull-based - really no difference to today conceptually, with boxes pulling and building whatever comes from gerrit. > > Part of the underlying reason is also the question of *what exactly* > > is the canonical TDF build. Default configure, or release build, or > > some temporally varying mix? Or as of today, whatever the tinderbox > > sponsor deems valuable? > > Again TDF owned and operated box _can_ be setup that way... although > I'd argue that the notion of a centralize scheduler is not a realistic > way to address the problem you mentioned earlier: if a box misbeave, > it is unlikely that a 'master scheduler' could diagnose what is wrong > and fix it... > Sure - the admin on duty could simply stop scheduling builds on that particular box. You can have all the benefits of the old system (pull-based, decentralized, completely self-paced, intermittent re-purposing/stopping of builds by the owner), with the benefits of a central job distribution. I would even route error / log reporting through the central scheduler. Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
