Re: Early pre-HEAD patch testing

On 02/07/2011 09:30 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> 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.

Cannot say I really _want_ it, but looks like I will need one to fix the
icc compiler problem.

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Mon Feb 21 2011 - 05:44:40 MST