Very nice!
Another thing we need to look at at some point is to make different VM build
for each major version.
The idea is that there is a dedicated build of the VM for "Pharo3", which would
be frozen with the release,
and then we start with a VM build for "Pharo4".
I even want them to have the major version number is the binary, so that it is
easy to install "Pharo3" in Parallel
to "Pharo4".
With this we free ourselves from needed the VM to be at the same time forward
*and* backward compatible.
And we make sure that the VM that people use for the stable release does not
change.
Marcus
On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Guillermo Polito <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> We were discussing over here about it, so I decided to finally start
> something on the front of an acceptance test for our VM.
>
> The core idea is to stress the VM to test its stability and find bugs and
> regressions.
>
> So I created the ci job in [1] which does:
> - use latest vm
> - use 2.0 latest image
> - loads seaside and moose on it
> - runs all tests
>
> Right now it runs on 6 different slaves, getting different results on each,
> which we should take care about :).
>
> Also there are some things on it that should be improved easily:
> - once 2.0 summer is released this job should use that version instead of
> the "latest" 2.0
> - right now we are loading the development version of moose because moose
> 4.8 is not released (but will be soon :)
>
> And of course, now we have them, we can improve them (and make them run
> because not all of them do :D).
>
> Guille
>
> [1] https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/VM/job/PharoVM-AcceptanceTest/
