On 11 May 2016, at 13:11, Robert Collins wrote: > > So, given that that is the model - why is language part of it? Yes, > there are minimum overheads to having a given language in CI - we need > to be able to do robust reliable builds [or accept periodic downtime > when the internet is not cooperating], and that sets a lower fixed > cost, varying per language. Right now we support Python, Java, > Javascript, Ruby in CI (as I understand it - infra focused folk please > jump in here :)).
+1000 this is what the whole thread should be about > Here is a straw man list of requirements: > - Reliable builds: the ability to build and test without talking to > the internet at all. > - Packagable: the ability to take a source tree for a project, do > some arbitrary transform and end up with a folder structure that can > be placed on another machine, with any needed dependencies, and work. > [Note, this isn't the same as 'packagable in a way that makes Red Hat > and Canonical and Suse **happy**, but thats something we can be sure > that those orgs are working on with language providers already ] > - FL/OSS > - Compatible with ASL v2 source code. [e.g. any compiler doesn't > taint its output] > - Can talk oslo.messaging's message format The great news is that we don't have to have the straw man--we actually are building the real list (and you've hit several of them). At the infra team meeting this week we talked through a few of these (mostly focused on the dependency management issues first), and we've started collecting notes on https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/golang-infra-issues-to-solve about the basic infra things that need to be figured out. --John
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
