Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.200.174 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=Ou29zI4jMVTH8gE/jw6pDu/H1DFErykjIl3RLiJUXVEja5XiOrkNFLyU06OjLuYAkW/V5/qrX/0ZW0/nn9pa3WA9XTHMYkKIS/aF4VcdTe0IZwmRf2FRD1b142ZZ+oHIsZbGsopp3OcjkP9TpxXJrTeyveiKRo58IfdktGysjlA=
Message-ID: <510143ac0803010603tfaedde7n69d3acab42628e5b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:03:31 +0200
From: "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>
To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Subject: Re: [scm] Use case: Continuous integration
In-Reply-To: <1204379557.29835.28.camel@marlow>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <510143ac0803010406n52fb6c8bm5b7d75e100757ce@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1204379557.29835.28.camel@marlow>

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Santiago Gala <santiago.gala@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>  El s=E1b, 01-03-2008 a las 14:06 +0200, Jukka Zitting escribi=F3:
>  > 1) Push-based CI: [...]
>
>  There is currently a trend to have feeds associated with SCM servers.

Feeds are certainly useful, but in this case I don't see how they
differ that much from doing an "svn update". You're right in that
feeds are probably much easier to cache, but it's still basically a
pull operation.

>  > there are enough computing resources either at Apache or an external
>  > CI lab for such potentially high-frequency integrations, would the
>  > associated load on our Subversion server be acceptable? If not, how
>  > could we resolve such issues?
>
>  I'm not sure about the issue. you mean that the CI server would do
>  checkouts and delete the data for each run? if this is the case, and
>  this is the only case where I can see a potential high load, I'd say the
>  alternative of having some sort of incrementally updated clean
>  sort-of-distributed repository from where to pull seems reasonable.

I recall complaints about some external CI systems putting too much
load on our Subversion server. I'm not sure what the exact nature of
the load is, but it seems clear that some guidelines would be useful.

BR,

Jukka Zitting