On 4/25/19 6:53 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
Karl Rupp via petsc-dev <[email protected]> writes:
With some effort we can certainly address 1.) and to some extent 3.),
probably 4.) as well, but I don't know how to solve 2.) and 5.) with
Jenkins. Given that a significant effort is required for 1.), 3.) and
4.) anyway, I'm starting to get more and more comfortable with the idea
of rolling our own CI infrastructure (which has been suggested in some
of Barry's snarky remarks already ;-) ). Small Python scripts for
executing the tests and pushing results to Bitbucket as well as a
central result storage can replicate our existing setup with a few lines
of codes, while being much more flexible.
I think further commitment to Bitbucket would be a liability.
Suggestions? Github, Gitlab, something else?
On existing open source CI tools, I think looking at how the project
itself uses CI is a good indicator. Some examples of recent PRs with
test failures, see what needs to be done to narrow down what failed.
https://github.com/buildbot/buildbot/pull/4726
https://github.com/drone/drone/pull/2363
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/27652 (click Expand on
the test failure)
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/3991
All of these offer more than what we have now. And yet, many offer
features we will never need and force upon us some constraints on our
workflow. Maybe other CI tools are better suited for PETSc than Jenkins
- I don't know, but maybe others know :-)
Our requirements for a package-manager-like PETSc with all its possible
external packages and weird software stacks on supercomputers are
different to 'standard' software, unfortunately.
Thanks for your input and best regards,
Karli
