On 11/29/2012 04:34 AM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:31:41 +1300
Michael Hudson-Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
I am hoping we can find some time to improve this with an API on
https://snapshots.linaro.org that would be authenticated directly,
but we can't make promises on when that's going to be around.
Sounds like all the more reason to keep the job file at the fairly
abstract "publish" level then.
Yes, I also fully agree with this idea. And it also clear that we need
to support different methods of publishing - test/devel and production,
old and new, etc. So, publish section in job JSON def would accept
identifier of publishing method, like "method"/"location"/"destination",
whatever:
{
"command": "publish",
"parameters": {
"location": "snapshots",
"pattern": "build/product/*/out/*.tar.*"
}
}
Seems about right - without me *really* thinking into the issue :)
That location key also shouldn't be treated as just a hostname, but
rather as identifier of publisher config, which can be for example a
subdirectory like:
publisher/<id>/:
publish - this gets called by lava with the list of files to do
actual publishing
ssh_key - a file used by publish script, can be any other files as
needed
I'm not a huge fan of this, but I don't really have a better suggestion
to offer.
Of course, the above is just a guess how it can be done, please use
whatever suits LAVA paradigm well, but it would be nice to get "devel"
publishing to mombin with existing LAVA setup soon, and "production"
publishing later, so some way of abstracting publisher support is
definitely needed. Please let us now if Infrastructure can help with
org side of this, like submitting a ticket or blueprint for this.
I think you are on the right track. I think the best way you could help
here, would be to submit a patch for this.
_______________________________________________
linaro-validation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
