> -----Original Message----- > From: Mathias Bauer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 8:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Is it time for a build machine? > > As much as I liked the old build bots and used them a lot, the whole setup > and their overall usage was far from what Hudson/Jenkins can deliver.
I would love you to explain please what Jenkins can do that Buildbot can not from your POV, thanks. Gav... > > So I maintain my point that there is nothing we can use and starting with a > new setup and new hardware is better. > > YMMV > > Regards, > Mathias > > Am 15.11.2011 um 22:12 schrieb Christian Lohmaier <[email protected]>: > > > Hi *, > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mathias Bauer > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 15.11.2011 04:36, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >>> > >>> Just wondering, > >>> > >>> Perhaps the older OOo at SUN/Oracle also had some setup for > >>> hudson/jenkins that we could reuse? > >> > >> No, unfortunately OOo never embraced continuous integration and all > >> the other wonderful things you can build around it. > > > > There have been both tinderbox as well as buildbot available and in > > use in the OOo project. > > Tinderbox did keep track of commits, did flag build-results as "dirty" > > when there were commits after the last build started, and thus allowed > > rebuilding when a cws was touched, and (some) buildbots were > > autotriggered by watching the commit-mailinglist, so they as well did > > built whenever the code was changed. > > That the build-results have often been ignored by the corresponding > > developers is a different story. But stating that there was no such > > thing is, well, typical. > > > > ciao > > Christian
