[build] Hudson based build

[Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>]

I now have an account [1] on the ASF Hudson machine, so can host some
more visible build and test projects there.

To get things started, I created a simple build job which will send mail
to the alerts@ list if the compile fails.

http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/

Next step is to pass the results of that build into a short integrity
testing cycle.


[1] Any PMC member can get one by raising a JIRA with Infra.
See  http://wiki.apache.org/general/Hudson

Regards,
Tim

Re: [build] Hudson based build

[Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Egor Pasko wrote:
>> On the 0x54C day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> Egor Pasko wrote:
>>>> On the 0x547 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>>> I now have an account [1] on the ASF Hudson machine, so can host some
>>>>> more visible build and test projects there.
>>>>>
>>>>> To get things started, I created a simple build job which will send mail
>>>>> to the alerts@ list if the compile fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/
>>>> Awesome! Now I do not have to ask people out there to check my patches
>>>> on x86_64 :) Thanks, Tim!
>>>>
>>>>> Next step is to pass the results of that build into a short integrity
>>>>> testing cycle.
>>>> I am seeing results of short integrity testing runs on Hudson. Does it
>>>> mean this is done already?
>>> It's still work in progress, but yes, just about done.
>>>
>>> I enhanced the 'build' job to include a very basic test (at this point
>>> it just runs the pack200 Junit tests.  This is to ensure that not only
>>> the build completes successfully, but that it also runs a very simple
>>> set of 'sniff' tests.
>>>
>>> I'm open to suggestions about what the sniff tests should be, but they
>>> should take next to no time at all to run after the build completes.
>>
>> 'sniff' testing in basic build is a good idea. And I guess pack200
>> unit tests should be just the right amount to be next to no time.
>>
>>> Once the short integration testing is working I'll redirect failures to
>>> the alerts list too, and schedule that to run frequently (being mindful
>>> that we are on a shared machine resource).  Then I'll move on to running
>>> longer tests, etc. etc.
>>
>> cool, ehwa running is already very useful
>
> I'm still struggling with the BTI, trying to adapt it to do the right thing.

OMG! I've been trying off and on to get the BTI running on my servers
to recreate the continuous integrity tests and I'd given up as I
thought it was just me and I was crazy. I feel a little better now
that someone else is having trouble with the BTI.

-Nathan

>
>>>> Is there a plan to set up an x86 build on Hudson? How much more
>>>> platforms/configurations is reasonable to run without making others
>>>> feel that we are wasting machine resources?
>>> AFAIK there is not a wide range of machine architectures available as
>>> Hudson build machines.  I will discuss with the infra team what we can
>>> get available.
>>
>> we could build and run a 32 bit binary on an x86_64 machine, but that
>> is likely a pain to set up our BTI for this. Is there support for
>> virtual machines? :)
>
> I believe they are hosting them as virtual hosts already, so it is a
> case of asking for other architectures to be made available.  I wanted
> to get a basic build / test going on one machine first.
>
>>> I think we can use more resources on the current machine if you can
>>> think of other configurations you want to run.
>>
>> It might be helpful to build release configuration so that users are
>> able to pick new binary snapshots anytime. (this would sound very
>> cool: "We don't have fresh 32 bit binaries, try our x86_64 builds).
>
> The builds are in release mode by default anyway.
> The latest good build is available at...
> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/job/Harmony-1.5-head-linux-x86_64/lastSuccessfulBuild/
>
>> Since DRLVM is not in a very active development we may save resources
>> and take DRLVM binary from the latest binary release.
>
> Rebuilding it is no problem.
>
>> I'll be glad to also find 2 runtime configurations in testing (client
>> and server). But .. not very critical.
>
> I'll bear it in mind once I am running tests.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>

Re: [build] Hudson based build

[Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>]

Chunrong,

Please don't be shy helping people with BTI. The help from Stepan and
Aleksey Varlamov (god praise their dedication to these fantastic
scripts) I got in addition to README was the most valuable and
welcome.

Thanks!

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:15 AM, chunrong lai <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Egor Pasko wrote:
>> > On the 0x54C day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>> >> Egor Pasko wrote:
>> >>> On the 0x547 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>> >>>> I now have an account [1] on the ASF Hudson machine, so can host some
>> >>>> more visible build and test projects there.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To get things started, I created a simple build job which will send
>> mail
>> >>>> to the alerts@ list if the compile fails.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/
>> >>> Awesome! Now I do not have to ask people out there to check my patches
>> >>> on x86_64 :) Thanks, Tim!
>> >>>
>> >>>> Next step is to pass the results of that build into a short integrity
>> >>>> testing cycle.
>> >>> I am seeing results of short integrity testing runs on Hudson. Does it
>> >>> mean this is done already?
>> >> It's still work in progress, but yes, just about done.
>> >>
>> >> I enhanced the 'build' job to include a very basic test (at this point
>> >> it just runs the pack200 Junit tests.  This is to ensure that not only
>> >> the build completes successfully, but that it also runs a very simple
>> >> set of 'sniff' tests.
>> >>
>> >> I'm open to suggestions about what the sniff tests should be, but they
>> >> should take next to no time at all to run after the build completes.
>> >
>> > 'sniff' testing in basic build is a good idea. And I guess pack200
>> > unit tests should be just the right amount to be next to no time.
>> >
>> >> Once the short integration testing is working I'll redirect failures to
>> >> the alerts list too, and schedule that to run frequently (being mindful
>> >> that we are on a shared machine resource).  Then I'll move on to running
>> >> longer tests, etc. etc.
>> >
>> > cool, ehwa running is already very useful
>>
>> I'm still struggling with the BTI, trying to adapt it to do the right
>> thing.
>
>
>  Not sure if I can help here. I myself setup BTI in my servers according to
> the readme files before.
>  As to the issue of -Duse.libstdc++6=true, I also locally modify the adaptor
> to include the option thus to continue testing.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >>> Is there a plan to set up an x86 build on Hudson? How much more
>> >>> platforms/configurations is reasonable to run without making others
>> >>> feel that we are wasting machine resources?
>> >> AFAIK there is not a wide range of machine architectures available as
>> >> Hudson build machines.  I will discuss with the infra team what we can
>> >> get available.
>> >
>> > we could build and run a 32 bit binary on an x86_64 machine, but that
>> > is likely a pain to set up our BTI for this. Is there support for
>> > virtual machines? :)
>>
>> I believe they are hosting them as virtual hosts already, so it is a
>> case of asking for other architectures to be made available.  I wanted
>> to get a basic build / test going on one machine first.
>>
>> >> I think we can use more resources on the current machine if you can
>> >> think of other configurations you want to run.
>> >
>> > It might be helpful to build release configuration so that users are
>> > able to pick new binary snapshots anytime. (this would sound very
>> > cool: "We don't have fresh 32 bit binaries, try our x86_64 builds).
>>
>> The builds are in release mode by default anyway.
>> The latest good build is available at...
>>
>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/job/Harmony-1.5-head-linux-x86_64/lastSuccessfulBuild/
>>
>> > Since DRLVM is not in a very active development we may save resources
>> > and take DRLVM binary from the latest binary release.
>>
>> Rebuilding it is no problem.
>>
>> > I'll be glad to also find 2 runtime configurations in testing (client
>> > and server). But .. not very critical.
>>
>> I'll bear it in mind once I am running tests.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>



-- 
С уважением,
Алексей Федотов,
ЗАО <<Телеком Экспресс>>

Re: [build] Hudson based build

[chunrong lai <ch...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Egor Pasko wrote:
> > On the 0x54C day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
> >> Egor Pasko wrote:
> >>> On the 0x547 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
> >>>> I now have an account [1] on the ASF Hudson machine, so can host some
> >>>> more visible build and test projects there.
> >>>>
> >>>> To get things started, I created a simple build job which will send
> mail
> >>>> to the alerts@ list if the compile fails.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/
> >>> Awesome! Now I do not have to ask people out there to check my patches
> >>> on x86_64 :) Thanks, Tim!
> >>>
> >>>> Next step is to pass the results of that build into a short integrity
> >>>> testing cycle.
> >>> I am seeing results of short integrity testing runs on Hudson. Does it
> >>> mean this is done already?
> >> It's still work in progress, but yes, just about done.
> >>
> >> I enhanced the 'build' job to include a very basic test (at this point
> >> it just runs the pack200 Junit tests.  This is to ensure that not only
> >> the build completes successfully, but that it also runs a very simple
> >> set of 'sniff' tests.
> >>
> >> I'm open to suggestions about what the sniff tests should be, but they
> >> should take next to no time at all to run after the build completes.
> >
> > 'sniff' testing in basic build is a good idea. And I guess pack200
> > unit tests should be just the right amount to be next to no time.
> >
> >> Once the short integration testing is working I'll redirect failures to
> >> the alerts list too, and schedule that to run frequently (being mindful
> >> that we are on a shared machine resource).  Then I'll move on to running
> >> longer tests, etc. etc.
> >
> > cool, ehwa running is already very useful
>
> I'm still struggling with the BTI, trying to adapt it to do the right
> thing.


 Not sure if I can help here. I myself setup BTI in my servers according to
the readme files before.
 As to the issue of -Duse.libstdc++6=true, I also locally modify the adaptor
to include the option thus to continue testing.


>
>
> >>> Is there a plan to set up an x86 build on Hudson? How much more
> >>> platforms/configurations is reasonable to run without making others
> >>> feel that we are wasting machine resources?
> >> AFAIK there is not a wide range of machine architectures available as
> >> Hudson build machines.  I will discuss with the infra team what we can
> >> get available.
> >
> > we could build and run a 32 bit binary on an x86_64 machine, but that
> > is likely a pain to set up our BTI for this. Is there support for
> > virtual machines? :)
>
> I believe they are hosting them as virtual hosts already, so it is a
> case of asking for other architectures to be made available.  I wanted
> to get a basic build / test going on one machine first.
>
> >> I think we can use more resources on the current machine if you can
> >> think of other configurations you want to run.
> >
> > It might be helpful to build release configuration so that users are
> > able to pick new binary snapshots anytime. (this would sound very
> > cool: "We don't have fresh 32 bit binaries, try our x86_64 builds).
>
> The builds are in release mode by default anyway.
> The latest good build is available at...
>
> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/job/Harmony-1.5-head-linux-x86_64/lastSuccessfulBuild/
>
> > Since DRLVM is not in a very active development we may save resources
> > and take DRLVM binary from the latest binary release.
>
> Rebuilding it is no problem.
>
> > I'll be glad to also find 2 runtime configurations in testing (client
> > and server). But .. not very critical.
>
> I'll bear it in mind once I am running tests.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>

Re: [build] Hudson based build

[Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>]

Egor Pasko wrote:
> On the 0x54C day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Egor Pasko wrote:
>>> On the 0x547 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>> I now have an account [1] on the ASF Hudson machine, so can host some
>>>> more visible build and test projects there.
>>>>
>>>> To get things started, I created a simple build job which will send mail
>>>> to the alerts@ list if the compile fails.
>>>>
>>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/
>>> Awesome! Now I do not have to ask people out there to check my patches
>>> on x86_64 :) Thanks, Tim!
>>>
>>>> Next step is to pass the results of that build into a short integrity
>>>> testing cycle.
>>> I am seeing results of short integrity testing runs on Hudson. Does it
>>> mean this is done already?
>> It's still work in progress, but yes, just about done.
>>
>> I enhanced the 'build' job to include a very basic test (at this point
>> it just runs the pack200 Junit tests.  This is to ensure that not only
>> the build completes successfully, but that it also runs a very simple
>> set of 'sniff' tests.
>>
>> I'm open to suggestions about what the sniff tests should be, but they
>> should take next to no time at all to run after the build completes.
> 
> 'sniff' testing in basic build is a good idea. And I guess pack200
> unit tests should be just the right amount to be next to no time.
> 
>> Once the short integration testing is working I'll redirect failures to
>> the alerts list too, and schedule that to run frequently (being mindful
>> that we are on a shared machine resource).  Then I'll move on to running
>> longer tests, etc. etc.
> 
> cool, ehwa running is already very useful

I'm still struggling with the BTI, trying to adapt it to do the right thing.

>>> Is there a plan to set up an x86 build on Hudson? How much more
>>> platforms/configurations is reasonable to run without making others
>>> feel that we are wasting machine resources?
>> AFAIK there is not a wide range of machine architectures available as
>> Hudson build machines.  I will discuss with the infra team what we can
>> get available.
> 
> we could build and run a 32 bit binary on an x86_64 machine, but that
> is likely a pain to set up our BTI for this. Is there support for
> virtual machines? :)

I believe they are hosting them as virtual hosts already, so it is a
case of asking for other architectures to be made available.  I wanted
to get a basic build / test going on one machine first.

>> I think we can use more resources on the current machine if you can
>> think of other configurations you want to run.
> 
> It might be helpful to build release configuration so that users are
> able to pick new binary snapshots anytime. (this would sound very
> cool: "We don't have fresh 32 bit binaries, try our x86_64 builds).

The builds are in release mode by default anyway.
The latest good build is available at...
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/job/Harmony-1.5-head-linux-x86_64/lastSuccessfulBuild/

> Since DRLVM is not in a very active development we may save resources
> and take DRLVM binary from the latest binary release.

Rebuilding it is no problem.

> I'll be glad to also find 2 runtime configurations in testing (client
> and server). But .. not very critical.

I'll bear it in mind once I am running tests.

Regards,
Tim

Re: [build] Hudson based build

[Egor Pasko <eg...@gmail.com>]

On the 0x54C day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
> Egor Pasko wrote:
>> On the 0x547 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> I now have an account [1] on the ASF Hudson machine, so can host some
>>> more visible build and test projects there.
>>>
>>> To get things started, I created a simple build job which will send mail
>>> to the alerts@ list if the compile fails.
>>>
>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/
>> 
>> Awesome! Now I do not have to ask people out there to check my patches
>> on x86_64 :) Thanks, Tim!
>> 
>>> Next step is to pass the results of that build into a short integrity
>>> testing cycle.
>> 
>> I am seeing results of short integrity testing runs on Hudson. Does it
>> mean this is done already?
>
> It's still work in progress, but yes, just about done.
>
> I enhanced the 'build' job to include a very basic test (at this point
> it just runs the pack200 Junit tests.  This is to ensure that not only
> the build completes successfully, but that it also runs a very simple
> set of 'sniff' tests.
>
> I'm open to suggestions about what the sniff tests should be, but they
> should take next to no time at all to run after the build completes.

'sniff' testing in basic build is a good idea. And I guess pack200
unit tests should be just the right amount to be next to no time.

> Once the short integration testing is working I'll redirect failures to
> the alerts list too, and schedule that to run frequently (being mindful
> that we are on a shared machine resource).  Then I'll move on to running
> longer tests, etc. etc.

cool, ehwa running is already very useful

>> Is there a plan to set up an x86 build on Hudson? How much more
>> platforms/configurations is reasonable to run without making others
>> feel that we are wasting machine resources?
>
> AFAIK there is not a wide range of machine architectures available as
> Hudson build machines.  I will discuss with the infra team what we can
> get available.

we could build and run a 32 bit binary on an x86_64 machine, but that
is likely a pain to set up our BTI for this. Is there support for
virtual machines? :)
 
> I think we can use more resources on the current machine if you can
> think of other configurations you want to run.

It might be helpful to build release configuration so that users are
able to pick new binary snapshots anytime. (this would sound very
cool: "We don't have fresh 32 bit binaries, try our x86_64 builds).

Since DRLVM is not in a very active development we may save resources
and take DRLVM binary from the latest binary release.

I'll be glad to also find 2 runtime configurations in testing (client
and server). But .. not very critical.

-- 
Egor Pasko

Re: [build] Hudson based build

[Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>]

Egor Pasko wrote:
> On the 0x547 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>> I now have an account [1] on the ASF Hudson machine, so can host some
>> more visible build and test projects there.
>>
>> To get things started, I created a simple build job which will send mail
>> to the alerts@ list if the compile fails.
>>
>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/
> 
> Awesome! Now I do not have to ask people out there to check my patches
> on x86_64 :) Thanks, Tim!
> 
>> Next step is to pass the results of that build into a short integrity
>> testing cycle.
> 
> I am seeing results of short integrity testing runs on Hudson. Does it
> mean this is done already?

It's still work in progress, but yes, just about done.

I enhanced the 'build' job to include a very basic test (at this point
it just runs the pack200 Junit tests.  This is to ensure that not only
the build completes successfully, but that it also runs a very simple
set of 'sniff' tests.

I'm open to suggestions about what the sniff tests should be, but they
should take next to no time at all to run after the build completes.

Once the short integration testing is working I'll redirect failures to
the alerts list too, and schedule that to run frequently (being mindful
that we are on a shared machine resource).  Then I'll move on to running
longer tests, etc. etc.

> Is there a plan to set up an x86 build on Hudson? How much more
> platforms/configurations is reasonable to run without making others
> feel that we are wasting machine resources?

AFAIK there is not a wide range of machine architectures available as
Hudson build machines.  I will discuss with the infra team what we can
get available.

I think we can use more resources on the current machine if you can
think of other configurations you want to run.

Regards,
Tim

>> [1] Any PMC member can get one by raising a JIRA with Infra.
>> See  http://wiki.apache.org/general/Hudson
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
> 

Re: [build] Hudson based build

[Egor Pasko <eg...@gmail.com>]

On the 0x547 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
> I now have an account [1] on the ASF Hudson machine, so can host some
> more visible build and test projects there.
>
> To get things started, I created a simple build job which will send mail
> to the alerts@ list if the compile fails.
>
> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Harmony/

Awesome! Now I do not have to ask people out there to check my patches
on x86_64 :) Thanks, Tim!

> Next step is to pass the results of that build into a short integrity
> testing cycle.

I am seeing results of short integrity testing runs on Hudson. Does it
mean this is done already?

Is there a plan to set up an x86 build on Hudson? How much more
platforms/configurations is reasonable to run without making others
feel that we are wasting machine resources?
 
> [1] Any PMC member can get one by raising a JIRA with Infra.
> See  http://wiki.apache.org/general/Hudson
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>

-- 
Egor Pasko