You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by janI <ja...@apache.org> on 2012/12/31 11:09:51 UTC
[discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra
supported ones, like e.g. Continuum.
Sharing servers with other and having other people maintain the build
routines should be to our advantage.
Or do I see life in the wrong light ?
rgds
Jan I
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
On 1/2/2013 2:25 AM, janI wrote:
> Andrea:
>
> thx for your observations.
>
> With the very low activity we have on trunk, there might be no reason for
> statistics.
>
> I am simply just used to a more comfortable and flexible build system. If I
> want to check my l10n changes on different platforms I have to (or so I
> have been told) merge it to trunk and maybe be a pain for all others, an
> alternative (which is seen in other build systems) is a possibility to
> register a branch for a single night-compile.
If it was a persistent branch or tag, it would be very easy to set up a
nightly build for it. (I'd be happy to do that, and we have resources
available to do it)
Beyond that it gets more difficult. Our build is pretty complex, and
each of the platforms takes a bit of tweaking - and still, they can be a
bit finicky.
The other issue is that we have a pretty long running build - 2 to 12
hours - and it contains a lot of long running processes. The problem
here is that the ci frameworks have a hard time canceling a build, when
they kill the process, they often leave around multiple child processes,
some which hang and cause future builds to break. This is a long winded
description of why the current approach focuses on nightly builds vs.
triggered builds.
Each of our builds is also pretty resource intensive, and if we are not
careful, it is pretty easy to cause problems for the projects who we
share buildbots with.
The above isn't meant to say that things are best as they are, or even
where we want it to be. This also isn't to suggest there aren't many
improvements to be made. I'm just trying to illuminate the hurdles we
face.
A.
>
> but I will leave that theme to others.
> Jan I.
>
> On 1 January 2013 23:07, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> janI wrote:
>>
>>> I might be wrong but do we e.g.
>>> - get automatic mail when a build fails ?
>>> - have a statistic over our build through time ?
>>>
>> Notifications are sent to openoffice-commits, see for example
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/openoffice-**
>> commits/201301.mbox/%**3C20130101075333.41945C00F8@**aegis.apache.org%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-commits/201301.mbox/%3C20130101075333.41945C00F8@aegis.apache.org%3E>
>>
>> I don't know if we have a handy way to see the build history and not just
>> the latest build status displayed at
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/**openoffice/<http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/>
>>
>>
>> I think the job being done today is great, and was in my own (obviously
>>> not
>>> too elegant) way just trying to see if we could improve.
>>>
>> I didn't see anything inappropriate in the requests and reactions about
>> the buildbot so far... it's normal to ask, it's normal to expect easy
>> fixes, and it's normal that more challenging changes are accepted or denied
>> based on discussion with people who are doing that work.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
Andrea:
thx for your observations.
With the very low activity we have on trunk, there might be no reason for
statistics.
I am simply just used to a more comfortable and flexible build system. If I
want to check my l10n changes on different platforms I have to (or so I
have been told) merge it to trunk and maybe be a pain for all others, an
alternative (which is seen in other build systems) is a possibility to
register a branch for a single night-compile.
but I will leave that theme to others.
Jan I.
On 1 January 2013 23:07, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> janI wrote:
>
>> I might be wrong but do we e.g.
>> - get automatic mail when a build fails ?
>> - have a statistic over our build through time ?
>>
>
> Notifications are sent to openoffice-commits, see for example
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/openoffice-**
> commits/201301.mbox/%**3C20130101075333.41945C00F8@**aegis.apache.org%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-commits/201301.mbox/%3C20130101075333.41945C00F8@aegis.apache.org%3E>
>
> I don't know if we have a handy way to see the build history and not just
> the latest build status displayed at
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/**openoffice/<http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/>
>
>
> I think the job being done today is great, and was in my own (obviously
>> not
>> too elegant) way just trying to see if we could improve.
>>
>
> I didn't see anything inappropriate in the requests and reactions about
> the buildbot so far... it's normal to ask, it's normal to expect easy
> fixes, and it's normal that more challenging changes are accepted or denied
> based on discussion with people who are doing that work.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 01.01.2013 23:07, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> janI wrote:
>> I might be wrong but do we e.g.
>> - get automatic mail when a build fails ?
>> - have a statistic over our build through time ?
>
> Notifications are sent to openoffice-commits, see for example
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-commits/201301.mbox/%3C20130101075333.41945C00F8@aegis.apache.org%3E
>
>
> I don't know if we have a handy way to see the build history and not
> just the latest build status displayed at
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
The "waterfall display" at http://s.apache.org/aoo_bbots1 gives a good
overview of the current and recent activity of all our buildbots.
The history of individual build results is available too, e.g.
http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7 show the status of last five
builds of the buildbot responsible for our nightly Windows builds.
The finer details of each build are also available in e.g.
http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/450
and an even more detailed overview of its latest build is at
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/buildlogs/win/log/wntmsci12.pro.build.html
Hope that helps.
Happy new year to everyone!
Herbert
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
janI wrote:
> I might be wrong but do we e.g.
> - get automatic mail when a build fails ?
> - have a statistic over our build through time ?
Notifications are sent to openoffice-commits, see for example
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-commits/201301.mbox/%3C20130101075333.41945C00F8@aegis.apache.org%3E
I don't know if we have a handy way to see the build history and not
just the latest build status displayed at
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
> I think the job being done today is great, and was in my own (obviously not
> too elegant) way just trying to see if we could improve.
I didn't see anything inappropriate in the requests and reactions about
the buildbot so far... it's normal to ask, it's normal to expect easy
fixes, and it's normal that more challenging changes are accepted or
denied based on discussion with people who are doing that work.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
I did know that we use the machines for building:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
But it seemed to me we could integrate deeper using e.g. continum and
sonar, to get better monitoring and reporting. I might be wrong but do we
e.g.
- get automatic mail when a build fails ?
- have a statistic over our build through time ?
I could also see an enhancement where we run an analysis of which part of
the code changes most, compared to which part of the code has most reported
bugs. I am used to that type of reports because if gives a feeling of the
weak spots in the code.
I think the job being done today is great, and was in my own (obviously not
too elegant) way just trying to see if we could improve.
Jan I.
On 31 December 2012 22:00, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Jan,
>
> On Dec 31, 2012, at 12:11 PM, jan iversen wrote:
>
> > excuse me I did NOT say that anybody did a bad job!!!!! on the contrary I
> > think a lot of people do a real big job !!!! I simply try to make the job
> > easier. but I do understand when a polite question is unwanted.
>
> How did my answer to Andrew imply any of the above?
>
> >
> > sorry for suggestion a possible improvement that will not happen again.
>
> Please keep asking questions. You suggested that we use one of the ASF
> supported tools like Continuum. Please see
> http://www.apache.org/dev/services.html#build which lists, Continuum,
> Buildbot, Gump and Jenkins.
>
> Andrew answered that we are using one of ASF supported tools - Buildbot. A
> lot of projects use it - http://ci.apache.org/builders Note that the
> Apache CMS also uses Buildbot.
>
> I was thanking Andrew explicitly because he is generally silent in his
> work.
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> And THANK YOU JAN for your hard work! Your contributions are appreciated!
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > Jan i
> > Den 31/12/2012 19.23 skrev "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net>:
> >
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> On Dec 31, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/31/2012 2:09 AM, janI wrote:
> >>>> Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra
> >>>> supported ones, like e.g. Continuum.
> >>> We /are/ using the ASF buildbot infrastructure. So I'm kind of
> confused
> >> by the question.
> >>> check http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
> >>> Also, the decision to go with buildbot, vs maven or something else in
> >> the ASF ci quiver was due to the complexity of our build.
> >>> Add to that the strange gymnastics we have to do on Windows (Herbert
> >> will attest to the strangeness!!) it is pretty much the only option as I
> >> see it.
> >>
> >> You and the rest of the buildbot team do a tremendous job!
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>>
> >>> A.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sharing servers with other and having other people maintain the build
> >>>> routines should be to our advantage.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or do I see life in the wrong light ?
> >>>>
> >>>> rgds
> >>>> Jan I
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Jan,
On Dec 31, 2012, at 12:11 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> excuse me I did NOT say that anybody did a bad job!!!!! on the contrary I
> think a lot of people do a real big job !!!! I simply try to make the job
> easier. but I do understand when a polite question is unwanted.
How did my answer to Andrew imply any of the above?
>
> sorry for suggestion a possible improvement that will not happen again.
Please keep asking questions. You suggested that we use one of the ASF supported tools like Continuum. Please see http://www.apache.org/dev/services.html#build which lists, Continuum, Buildbot, Gump and Jenkins.
Andrew answered that we are using one of ASF supported tools - Buildbot. A lot of projects use it - http://ci.apache.org/builders Note that the Apache CMS also uses Buildbot.
I was thanking Andrew explicitly because he is generally silent in his work.
Happy New Year!
And THANK YOU JAN for your hard work! Your contributions are appreciated!
Regards,
Dave
>
> Jan i
> Den 31/12/2012 19.23 skrev "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net>:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On Dec 31, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 12/31/2012 2:09 AM, janI wrote:
>>>> Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra
>>>> supported ones, like e.g. Continuum.
>>> We /are/ using the ASF buildbot infrastructure. So I'm kind of confused
>> by the question.
>>> check http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
>>> Also, the decision to go with buildbot, vs maven or something else in
>> the ASF ci quiver was due to the complexity of our build.
>>> Add to that the strange gymnastics we have to do on Windows (Herbert
>> will attest to the strangeness!!) it is pretty much the only option as I
>> see it.
>>
>> You and the rest of the buildbot team do a tremendous job!
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>> A.
>>>>
>>>> Sharing servers with other and having other people maintain the build
>>>> routines should be to our advantage.
>>>>
>>>> Or do I see life in the wrong light ?
>>>>
>>>> rgds
>>>> Jan I
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
excuse me I did NOT say that anybody did a bad job!!!!! on the contrary I
think a lot of people do a real big job !!!! I simply try to make the job
easier. but I do understand when a polite question is unwanted.
sorry for suggestion a possible improvement that will not happen again.
Jan i
Den 31/12/2012 19.23 skrev "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net>:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Dec 31, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>
> >
> > On 12/31/2012 2:09 AM, janI wrote:
> >> Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra
> >> supported ones, like e.g. Continuum.
> > We /are/ using the ASF buildbot infrastructure. So I'm kind of confused
> by the question.
> > check http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
> > Also, the decision to go with buildbot, vs maven or something else in
> the ASF ci quiver was due to the complexity of our build.
> > Add to that the strange gymnastics we have to do on Windows (Herbert
> will attest to the strangeness!!) it is pretty much the only option as I
> see it.
>
> You and the rest of the buildbot team do a tremendous job!
>
> Best Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > A.
> >>
> >> Sharing servers with other and having other people maintain the build
> >> routines should be to our advantage.
> >>
> >> Or do I see life in the wrong light ?
> >>
> >> rgds
> >> Jan I
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Andrew,
On Dec 31, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>
> On 12/31/2012 2:09 AM, janI wrote:
>> Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra
>> supported ones, like e.g. Continuum.
> We /are/ using the ASF buildbot infrastructure. So I'm kind of confused by the question.
> check http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
> Also, the decision to go with buildbot, vs maven or something else in the ASF ci quiver was due to the complexity of our build.
> Add to that the strange gymnastics we have to do on Windows (Herbert will attest to the strangeness!!) it is pretty much the only option as I see it.
You and the rest of the buildbot team do a tremendous job!
Best Regards,
Dave
>
> A.
>>
>> Sharing servers with other and having other people maintain the build
>> routines should be to our advantage.
>>
>> Or do I see life in the wrong light ?
>>
>> rgds
>> Jan I
>>
>
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
On 12/31/2012 2:09 AM, janI wrote:
> Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra
> supported ones, like e.g. Continuum.
We /are/ using the ASF buildbot infrastructure. So I'm kind of confused
by the question.
check http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
Also, the decision to go with buildbot, vs maven or something else in
the ASF ci quiver was due to the complexity of our build.
Add to that the strange gymnastics we have to do on Windows (Herbert
will attest to the strangeness!!) it is pretty much the only option as I
see it.
A.
>
> Sharing servers with other and having other people maintain the build
> routines should be to our advantage.
>
> Or do I see life in the wrong light ?
>
> rgds
> Jan I
>