harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [build] Hudson based build
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:47:31 GMT
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...

> 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.


View raw message