> > | Would it be useful if I tried to get hold of such a thing,
>
> I think it's safe to say that support like this would make many people happy
I have an x86 Mac (running Leopard) available 24/7 which I have offered
as a buildbot. Just waiting for all the buildbot admin stuff to be
sorted out
> | Would it be useful if I tried to get hold of such a thing, intending to
> run it
> | (and make it available) in the same manner as I do the tnaur PPC 2
> machinery,
> | including the above suggestions? The PPC Mac OS X's seem to be be on the
> way
> | out, so something would have to be done abo
| > By the way: is there anyone able to host an OS X x86 buildbot? It
| > seems like a decently-sized hole in our testsuite. I'd offer to run
| > it, but my iMac isn't powered on 24/7.
|
| Would it be useful if I tried to get hold of such a thing, intending to run it
| (and make it available) in
Hello,
On Monday 04 August 2008 12:38, Simon Marlow wrote:
> ...
> As I see it, the biggest problem is that the Mac OS X build keeps breaking,
> because we don't actively test on that platform. We *do* test on other
> platforms: in fact we use the validate script that was originally proposed
On 05/08/2008, at 01:30, Judah Jacobson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Configuring filepath fails without any diagnostics.
Strange; I haven't seen anything like that.
It seems to be caused by the exception handling changes and my rat
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 04/08/2008, at 17:45, Judah Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/08/2008, at 16:55, Judah Jacobson wrote:
>>>
For what it's worth
2. BuildBot can't cope with dropped connections in the middle of a build.
Again I have a ticket open against BuildBot but fixing it apparently
requires large amounts of infrastructure refactoring, so it's currently
scheduled for the next-but-one major release of BuildBot, which could be
months
Claus Reinke wrote:
going back from the use of darcs-specific 'pull --intersection' (but
still relying on selective pull in some form), and addressing Roman's
point about avoiding conflicts:
0. for each platform, have a list of successfully tested patches
1. humans (GHC users, needing a workin
going back from the use of darcs-specific 'pull --intersection' (but
still relying on selective pull in some form), and addressing Roman's
point about avoiding conflicts:
0. for each platform, have a list of successfully tested patches
1. humans (GHC users, needing a working build of HEAD):
Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 04/08/2008, at 20:50, Claus Reinke wrote:
0. for each platform, have a list of successfully tested patches
1. push patches as now
2. humans pull the lists of tested patches, then only pull
the patches on the list for their platform (unless they
are trying to de
On 04/08/2008, at 20:50, Claus Reinke wrote:
0. for each platform, have a list of successfully tested patches
1. push patches as now
2. humans pull the lists of tested patches, then only pull
the patches on the list for their platform (unless they
are trying to debug the failed patches) - t
Having imagined things that far, one might tune this further, to
simply assume that every patch is for buildbot only at first, and
to have lists of successfully built/tested patches per platform:
actually, it seems that darcs does have a feature I didn't know
about that might make this fairly s
Simon's mail explains why we changed the build system, but to answer
your specific build problem:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 11:50:08PM -0500, Austin Seipp wrote:
>
> > Preprocessing executables for ghc-pkg-6.9...
> > Building ghc-pkg-6.9...
[...]
> > Main.hs:1143:14: Not in scope: `Exception.onExc
I've done a little searching, and I found at least one continuous
integration tool that will do this (for Git though, not Darcs)
"continuous integration" would seem to be a useful thing support
for which to have nice would be (even if it might permute patches
in unexpected ways, depending on whe
Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Does anyone actually pay attention to the bots? Yesterday:
x86-64 Linux head:lost
x86 Windows head: lost
x86 Windows head fast:fail (failed stage1) fail (failed
stage1) lost fail (failed stage1) lost lost
fast486 head:
We *do* think that stability is important (which is why we're using
validate now), and all the changes that have been made recently have been
made in good faith for good reasons. That's not to say I don't think
people have valid concerns - but let's deal with the motivation first.
Here's some
2008/8/4 Judah Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It seems like most of the recent build breakages have been with
> patches not being validated on a complete set of OSes (OS X and
> Windows, in particular). In last week's IRC meeting, Neil Mitchell
> mentioned:
>
>> i've always wondered why there isn
Hi Austin,
> Essentially everything is coming down to the build system it looks
> like. The basic idea is to go from autoconf -> Cabal as I see it.
> What is this new system buying us? Because currently, it seems to have
> cost us:
>
> 1. Parallel builds (i.e. make -j, brought up by ChilliX)
> 2.
On 04/08/2008, at 17:45, Judah Jacobson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On 04/08/2008, at 16:55, Judah Jacobson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Austin Seipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
For the past two weeks or so I have been u
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 04/08/2008, at 16:55, Judah Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Austin Seipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> For the past two weeks or so I have been unable to build the latest
>>> GHC HEAD fro
On 04/08/2008, at 16:55, Judah Jacobson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Austin Seipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
For the past two weeks or so I have been unable to build the latest
GHC HEAD from the main darcs development branch (I believe the last
one I managed to build here on OS X 1
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Austin Seipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For the past two weeks or so I have been unable to build the latest
> GHC HEAD from the main darcs development branch (I believe the last
> one I managed to build here on OS X 10.5 was 20080720.) From the looks
> of it this
tuff going into
this new release, so lots of stuff will have to be tested, integrated
and polished. It is a big time in GHC land and even I can tell that
much.
But this is something that needs to be brought up I think and I can
speak personally - and for others, likely - when I say that an
unfriendly
23 matches
Mail list logo
