continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Edward Gruber <cgru...@israfil.net>
Subject Re: Associating projects with distributed build agents
Date Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:47:02 GMT
Rather than agent groups, could we go with a criteria approach?  That  
is to say, you can describe and agent's capabilities, then associate  
criteria for a project group or project, and then let the system sort  
out which agents can fulfill which criteria?

Christian.

On 17-Jan-09, at 12:28 , Wendy Smoak wrote:

> One of the goals at the top of the Distributed Builds wiki page is the
> ability to build on multiple platforms.
>
> As we've discussed in some other threads and on irc, we need some way
> of telling Continuum which agent(s) to execute builds on.
>
> To me, it seems like this belongs as a field on the build environment,
> which is then selected on the build definition.
>
> That would be a good next step IMO -- to pin a particular build def to
> a particular agent through the environment.
>
> However, I don't want to lose the effect of distributed builds in
> parallel that we're getting from the current 'next available'
> selection.
>
> So, how does having groups of agents sound?  Then you could associate
> a build environment with a pool of agents, and the next available one
> of those would be chosen.
>
> You might have a large group of identically configured Linux boxes
> that most of your builds can be distributed to.  However, maybe there
> is one special project group that needs their own private pool to work
> on a top secret project.  Another team might be targeting Solaris and
> want to do their builds on a pool of three Solaris boxes.  And of
> course the project that only builds on Windows needs to always build
> on the one Windows agent you have reluctantly configured for them. ;)
>
> There's an additional requirement that the system admin must be able
> to limit which environments a project team is allowed to choose.
> While a project developer can modify build definitions and add new
> ones, he should not have free choice of *all* the available
> environments.  This probably means adding an "Allowed Build
> Environments" field to the project group.
>
> How does that sound?  Does anyone have a different idea of how this  
> should work?
>
> -- 
> Wendy
>

Christian E. Gruber - President / Senior Consultant                
email:  cgruber@israfil.net
Isráfíl Consulting Services Corporation                            
mobile: +1 (289) 221-9839
"Keenness of understanding is due to keenness of vision..."        
phone:  +1 (905) 640-1119






Mime
View raw message