stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: moving build result pages to the stdcxx site
Date Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:55:46 GMT
This has just become a pressing issue because of the attached
notice. We have over 5GB of build logs in ~sebor/public_html
going as far back as June 2007.

I have a question in to Tony about size limits in /www and
under HOME to help us decide what is the better location to
store this data and what we should delete. My thinking is
that we want to keep the full set of results for each branch
in active development going all the way back to the most
recent release. For each release, we want to keep logs for
the final release candidate. The question is, what do we do
for trunk? I'm pretty sure it's not feasible to keep all the
logs between the last major release (that'd be years).

Martin Sebor wrote:
> I'd like to get STDCXX-682 (move build result pages from ~sebor
> to the stdcxx site) resolved and I'm wondering if the directory
> structure I set up for our build results is what we want under
> stdcxx.
> The directory tree with stdcxx nightly build results rooted
> at currently looks like this:
>   stdcxx{,-4.2.0,-4.2.1}{,-rc-*}/
>     |
>     +-- results/index.html
>     |     |
>     |     +-- builds/
>     |     |     |
>     |     |     +-- index.html --> ../builds.html
>     |     |     +-- <xbuild-pages>.html
>     |     +-- builds.html
>     |     +-- <build-logs>-log.gz.txt
>     |     +-- <config-headers>-cfg-h.gz.txt
>     |     +-- <config-logs>-cfg-l.gz.txt
>     +-- <rc-tarballs>.tar.gz
>     +-- other files of general interest
> Is this the directory layout that we want somewhere under
> (and what should the name of the
> directory be) or do we want to make some tweaks?
> Btw., the stdcxx site gets updated (published) less frequently
> than our home directories, so when published there, our nightly
> results will appear only after a delay. I'm not sure what the
> delay is but it could be as much as an hour. I don't think it
> should be a big concern for us if we publish them just once
> a day but I thought I'd mention it just the same.
> Let me know your thoughts.
> Martin

View raw message