From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pug.o-hand.com (3a.49.1343.static.theplanet.com [67.19.73.58]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E734C811F9 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 06:14:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from [10.250.128.97] (unknown [158.43.2.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pug.o-hand.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA17612EC117 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 06:53:04 -0600 (CST) From: Joshua Lock To: poky@yoctoproject.org In-Reply-To: <4CFE82DC.5020608@intel.com> References: <4CFD94DD.7010906@intel.com> <4CFE7269.4000507@intel.com> <1291747386.9405.3.camel@scimitar> <4CFE82DC.5020608@intel.com> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:14:44 +0000 Message-ID: <1291810484.2516.3.camel@scimitar> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 (2.32.1-1.fc14) Subject: Re: Master Stability X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:14:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:54 -0800, Scott Garman wrote: > On 12/07/2010 10:43 AM, Joshua Lock wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 09:44 -0800, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote: > >> Acked-by: Beth Flanagan > >> > >> (Stands on build engineer soap box) > >> > >> If at all possible, when you try to verify a fix, do a full clean build > >> for more than just one arch using BB_NUMBER_THREADS and PARALLEL_MAKE. > >> With the number of pull requests coming through, it becomes more and > >> more vital to verify patches prior to sending them out. > >> > >> Preferably, I'd like to start seeing people add something like a > >> Verified-with: tag to pull requests, so we can at least > >> identify pulls that need more peer review than normal. > > > > Personally I'd like to see links to an autobuilder report showing it has > > succeeded and if such a tag is *not* on a pull request it's > > automatically pushed to an autobuilder instance with the success of the > > build sent back to the list as a reply to the patch thread. > > > > I think hardware constraints make this a bit of a pipe dream though? > > We're definitely hardware constrained for it. I want a pony also. ;) I've become increasingly jealous because some colleagues have a unicorn! It's called git test-sequence: http://dustin.github.com/2010/03/28/git-test-sequence.html > > Beth has started working on customizing Buildbot's web interface to > allow finer-grained control over what gets built. A longer-range goal of > this is eventually be able to pick which targets and architectures get > built from a custom autobuilder buildset. That way someone with a commit > to quilt (which has very few dependencies) wouldn't have to build all of > poky-image-sato to demonstrate their build works. With something like > that in place, we can start to consider having individual developers > test their changes on our autobuilder infrastructure. Which would kick ass. No kidding, can't wait! Hopefully we can tie something like git test-sequence into this such that we can do these things from our lovely shell environments :-) Cheers, Joshua -- Joshua Lock Intel Open Source Technology Centre