Re: Early pre-HEAD patch testing

On 08/02/11 12:55, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Alex Rousskov
> <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:
>> The problem with branches is that you have to commit changes (and,
>> later, fixes) _before_ you test. Sometimes, that is not a good idea
>> because you may want to simply _reject_ the patch if it fails the test
>> instead of committing/fixing it. I suspect it would be OK to abuse lp a
>> little and create a "garbage" branch not associated with any specific
>> long-term development but used "when I need to test a patch" instead.
>
> You can certainly do that, and LP won't mind at all. Note though that
> a parameterised build in hudson can trivially build *any* branch off
> of LP, so you can equally push your experiment to
> ...$myexistingfeature-try-$thing-out.
>
> -Rob

Except the virtual slaves are IPv6-only and windows slave is carefully
firewalled. Unless something major has changed that. And launchpad
seems not to be a dual-stack site yet.

To get around the 3.ALPHA-patches problem I'll expand it out as separate
jobs tonight. It's going to be a bit of pain to keep track which job
numbers we have scheduled where but less pain than trunk experimental
commits or regular custom job creation.

So... who wants Hudson logins to start using these?

So far we have kinkie, guido, robert, henrik, and myself setup.

Amos

-- 
Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.10
   Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.4