Re: Quality Assurance Tinderbox (build packages on commit and report failures)

[Zafer Aydogan <zafer%aydogan.de@localhost>]

2010/3/23 David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:35:38AM -0500, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> Â> [...]
> Â> Reports and automated notifications of failures on-commit for pkgsrc
> Â> seems like a great idea. Why wait for someone to report a bug or do a
> Â> long bulk build when we can find out quickly (days versus minutes)?
>
> Why would it be more quickly? The issue with bulk builds is that they
> take a long time because if someone commits e.g. perl or glib2 a large
> number of expensive packages have to be rebuilt afterwards.
>
> I don't see how this would avoid that effect.
>
> However, I wonder if it makes sense to have a tool that uploads
> results incrementally and also schedules the its rebuilds to do the
> fastest packages first. (I suspect this would be more than just a new
> operating mode for pbulk...)
>
> Hmm......
>
> --
> David A. Holland
> dholland%netbsd.org@localhost
>

I've been thinking about this. It would be excellent if we could have
a dedicated machine for solely verifying new commits (on-commit
checks), building and rebuilding the packages with all necessary
dependencies (hi david!), and then reporting its results back via mail
to a list (and additionally to the commiter) or on a website.
In general, the commiter has already verified that his commit builds,
but nevertheless exctensive checking lacks time. So an automated
framework, say this Quality Assurance Machine would be excellent.
If we have no resources, left, maybe marketing@ could ask for a
sponsored machine.

Zafer.
zafer%netbsd.org@localhost