[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       squid-dev
Subject:    Re: Early pre-HEAD patch testing
From:       Alex Rousskov <rousskov () measurement-factory ! com>
Date:       2011-02-21 5:44:30
Message-ID: 4D61FBBE.60209 () measurement-factory ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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@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.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]