Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne <montagn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) > > Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > > Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a code in > > the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. > > On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" <montagn...@wanadoo.fr> > wrote: > > > >> Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I > >> fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. > >> > >> In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in > >> master_unpack.py, something like: > >> > >> diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >> b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >> index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 > >> --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >> +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': > >> sys.exit(1) > >> > >> # extract > >> -directory = 'public_html/download' > >> +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else > >> 'public_html/download/testbuilds' > >> > >> try: > >> zf = z.open(package) > >> > >> public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. > >> > >> On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the > >> download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for > >> users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, > otherwise. > >> > >> As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed > >> at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them > anyway. > >> > >> And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good > >> to me. > >> > >> Bastien > >> > >> Le 11/10/2014 20:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > >>> It _had been_ discussed several times at least. Starting from > discussion > >> in > >>> #lbendercoders between me, Dan, Bastien and even Ton. Then once it was > >> all > >>> set up (and i believe some discussion happened in the ML as well). Once > >> all > >>> the changes to the infrastructure were done it was announced in the ML: > >>> http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2014-July/043948.html > >> In > >>> such a situation it's real weird to have a post-factum "it should have > >>> never been done this way". > >>> > >>> As an addition to the previous suggestion: > >>> - We can as well just put a REAL HUGE BANNER on top of the experimental > >>> builds just to stress once again that they're experimental if it'll be > >>> considered useful to have those builds listed to public. > >>> - We can rename "testbuild" to something like "devbuild" (as > >>> developer-build) or "experimental" to prevent possible confusion with > the > >>> testbuilds being done as a part of the release build. > >>> > >>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Ton Roosendaal <t...@blender.org> > >> wrote: > >>>> Hi Bastien, > >>>> > >>>> Sorry, I've asked around and had the impression Sergey added the > feature > >>>> on builder.blender.org. > >>>> > >>>> The fact that building branches on buildbot is useful is not disputed. > >>>> It's just not acceptable to offer an official build for download on a > >>>> popular page on blender.org, with unknown patches or branches > applied. > >>>> > >>>> Let's just keep the lines short and discuss decisions like this > together > >>>> well? > >>>> > >>>> Laters, > >>>> > >>>> -Ton- > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > >>>> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > >>>> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 11 Oct, 2014, at 18:24, Bastien Montagne wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I’m not happy at all with both the decision and the way it was taken. > >>>>> Fyi, I was the one who spent a fair amount of time some months agon > >>>>> setting this up, and I think it has proven to be really really useful > >>>>> for all wip projects around. > >>>>> > >>>>> Further more, I do not see any reason to just cut this out out of the > >>>>> blue, there was no urgency at all here. And I do not even really > >>>>> understand the root of the issue, imho people who are not able to > make > >> a > >>>>> distinction between builds tagged as 'official' and builds tagged as > >>>>> 'testbuild' have nothing to do on builder.b.o. > >>>>> > >>>>> But even though, imho it would have been much nicer to ask to add > some > >>>>> way to delete testbuilds from the server, again see no urgency at all > >>>>> here that could justify this discontinuation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Adding back build of all branches will just create much much more > mess, > >>>>> we won’t gain anything. Oh, and people that cannot understand what > >>>>> 'testbuild' means won’t be able either to distinguish from master and > >>>>> branches builds - even less I’d say. > >>>>> > >>>>> Very disapointed here! > >>>>> Bastien > >>>>> > >>>>> Le 11/10/2014 15:59, Ton Roosendaal a écrit : > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've asked Sergey to disable the testbuild branch from automatic > >>>> building. > >>>>>> This is currently leading to a confusing situation. People have no > >> idea > >>>> what's the code that is in it. It's even being used to apply patches > >> from > >>>> the tracker on it. This information is invisible for our website > >> visitors. > >>>>>> Worse is that visitors think it's the official release test build, > and > >>>> not a testing branch for coders only. > >>>>>> We should do this better communicated. Can we just back to the old > >>>> option that you can build branches? > >>>>>> This way that branch build gets properly named and timestamped. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The only problem is that too many builds might flood the bot's list > of > >>>> builds. It shouldn't be too hard to make a delete button on that page > >> for > >>>> old ones (for admins)? > >>>>>> Laters, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Ton- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > >>>>>> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > >>>>>> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list > >>>>>> Bf-committers@blender.org > >>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > >>>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Bf-committers mailing list > >>>>> Bf-committers@blender.org > >>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Bf-committers mailing list > >>>> Bf-committers@blender.org > >>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > >>>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bf-committers mailing list > >> Bf-committers@blender.org > >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > Bf-committers@blender.org > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers