Hi, Raphael Thanks a lot for the efforts.
See my comments inline. Thanks, Shiliu. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raphael Kubo da Costa Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Crosswalk-dev] RFC: Not archive build on the public build bots > I've been working on our public build bot infrastructure over the past few > days; I will send another email with more information as soon as there's more > to show than a test Linux builder. > What I'd like to discuss here is whether it makes sense to continue archiving > executables and packages generated in each build. For example, the Linux > builders currently archive the xwalk_{browser,unit}test binaries, xwalk > itself and a few other files; the Windows builders store pretty much the same > things; the Android ones store APKs and the Tizen/T-E-C store the RPMs > created by GBS (including the debug ones). Shiliu: I agree currently we are archiving too much. For windows and linux, to avoid license issue, there is even a copy just without d3d dlls/ffmpeg libs for each build. And now we have canary builds, this is not needed anymore. > Depending on the platform, the binaries generated by each of those builders > can be several hundreds of megabytes in size (for example, > crosswalk-debuginfo-2.31.22.0-0.i586.rpm has 441M, xwalk-linux.zip plus its > two tests are around 250M). Transfering such amount of data from the build > slaves to the master in 01.org can be insanely slow (the test Linux builder I > mentioned above took more than 1 hour to transfer 250M). Shiliu: The archive host doesn't have to be 01.org. I think that we keep the archive host internal is also acceptable. ( The download link on chromium's waterfall page is also invalid ) > Personally, I don't find it very useful to archive such data, even if for a > limited amount of time: so far, I've seen people use the Linux binaries to > avoid having to build Crosswalk themselves, or the Tizen RPMs for the same > reason. Does anyone else know of another reason other than that for keeping > those binaries around? Would it ruin anyone's life if we stopped doing that > once we start using build.crosswalk-project.org? Shiliu: For me, when I want to get some binaries without compiling it myself, I will get to buildbot archive instead of canary build. The main reason is that the canary build will never contain the change I just check in, and I may work with others on some feature, and I want them to verify the change I just made. _______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev _______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
