> Aren’t they published to S3 somewhere? It’d probably be better if users fetch systemvms from S3……
Both not a clue what the S3 urls are though. > though one wonders why users need to fetch systemvms built from master at all… Ease of access for running from the latest master branch I'd imagine. On 24 September 2014 15:21, Leo Simons <lsim...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > On Sep 24, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: > >> The general concept is one of traceable and repeatable builds. > > > > In the context of jenkins.buildacloud.org I would disagree with this. > Only > > two build jobs are ever kept. When a time arises when you need to figure > > out what commit your systemvm was based of I'd be willing to bet that job > > has been cleared out of jenkins ages ago. > > > >> In RPM land, the jenkins $BUILD_NUMBER should go into the RPM Release > > field and not into the RPM Version field. But in this case we don’t have > > RPM, or spec files > > > > Isn't this what we use /etc/cloudstack-release for? > > You could include extra information in there if you wish, version, > branch, > > git sha1, etc. which would give great traceability. > > Sounds like a plan. I’ll see about submitting a patch tonight. The issue > is that /etc/cloudstack-release is parsed in a location or two (I forget > the details) so it kind-of has to match existing regexes. > > > The supplied download-template script is dependant on having a local > > nexus/artifactory that can do searching on published build artifacts. In > > the context of jenkins.buildacloud.org the system vms are not uploaded > to > > nexus/artifactory and just kept on the jenkins box. > > Aren’t they published to S3 somewhere? It’d probably be better if users > fetch systemvms from S3……though one wonders why users need to fetch > systemvms built from master at all… > > > Changing this causes 404s for people example: > > > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cloudstack-users/201409.mbox/browser > > Hmm. We can’t have too many people badgering jenkins like this I guess. So > let’s improve on that! > > In the meantime... > export BUILD_NUMBER= > at the right place in the relevant build job should fix the immediate > issue... > > > cheers, > > > Leo > >
