On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Sean Schofield wrote:

Just to be clear I am not talking about GUMP.  The GUMP Wiki itself
recommends against doing nightly builds using GUMP.  There is a
separate WIKI  (http://wiki.apache.org/gump/BrutusConfig/RequestANightlyBuild)
that addresses using Brutus to do the nightly builds using ant (not
GUMP).

So basically using the reliability of the GUMP server (Brutus) but not
the unreliability of the GUMP process.  Do you see any drawbacks to
that?

Yes, I do, and that was my point. I'm not talking about Gump either. I'm talking about the hardware. Brutus is an untrusted box, managed by the Gump team, and not managed in any way by the ASF infrastructure team. It is not the right box to be building any distributions on, regardless of what tool is used to build them, because you cannot trust the distros if you cannot trust the box.


In the meantime, I have an email into those guys to learn more
and see what would be required.

If there is another ASF box more suited for this then of course I
would be interested.  My main interest is to get nightlies sooner
rather than later.  Do you think we can use one of the boxes managed
by Craig or Glenn in the meantime?  I'm certainly happy to work with
you on that either now or later when it becomes available.

The boxes used by Craig and Glenn are their own personal boxes, and so not accessible by anyone else. That is the main reason we need to get all of the nightlies running on proper ASF hardware - so that you or I or anyone else can maintain them.


My thinking was to try to get something running (not nightly, just running) on minotaur first, and then to approach infra@ for access to an appropriate box for nightly runs. Unfortunately, I've had trouble with minotaur, quite possible because infra@ doesn't want that kind of thing to run on that box. So we may be better off approaching infra@ for access to a box first, and then setting up the builds, rather than vice versa.

In the meantime I will start tweaking the Ant script by adding a
"nightly" target.  This will build everything that we might want for
the nightlies.  That will give us something to talk about while we
decide where to host them.

Why would a "nightly" target be any different from a regular distribution target? Don't you want the nightlies to reflect exactly what you would produce with a "release" build?


--
Martin Cooper


sean

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:12:22 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would strongly recommend *against* setting your nightly builds up on
brutus. I'm more than a little surprised that Ant is doing that.

The issue is that brutus is an untrusted system. This is because its
primary purpose is to run Gump, which picks up and builds all sorts of
code from all sorts of places. Creating "official" nightly builds from an
untrusted system is not a good idea.

Right now, many of the nightly builds are being run on non-ASF hardware
(e.g. by Craig McClanahan and Glenn Nielsen). The goal is, at some point,
to move all of those to (trusted) ASF hardware. I volunteered to help out
with this, but have not worked it out yet. (I have been trouble trying to
get a preliminary build running on minotaur, which was my first goal.)

I would be happy to work with someone on the MyFaces team (Sean? ;) to
include MyFaces in the mix as soon as we can get nightlies running on an
appropriate ASF box.

--
Martin Cooper


On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Sean Schofield wrote:

I spoke with one of the committers on the Ant project.  (BTW I just
chose Ant at random and because its one of the more mature Apache
projects, I have no special feelings towards Ant.)

Anyways, he told me that their nightly builds are done by Brutus
(which is the same machine that does the GUMP builds.)  I looked
through their Wiki and they can provide support for nightly builds.
The Brutus server would perform the builds from CVS and also host the
resulting tarballs.  We could then make them available from the
myfaces site using a link similar to this:

http://brutus.apache.org/~nightlybuild/builds/ant/

I can take the lead on this but I wanted to get sign off from the
other developers.  I personally don't care how the nightly builds get
done, just so long as we can have them sooner rather than later.  This
just happens to be one way to do it.

Thoughts?

sean



Reply via email to