On 30 June 2011 03:30, Yanni Chiu <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29/06/11 6:24 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: >> >> +1 to Sig's answer. Old builds are great, and we should (and do) >> keep them around, but they do not need to be on the CI server. As >> Sig said, the old versions don't change, so CI gets pretty boring. > > There is the option to disable the build job, so that no further builds take > place (until there are maintenance releases to build). > > There is also the option to use the CI server as the build archive as well. > You can mark some build numbers as "never remove". Normally, only the last N > builds are kept, and the oldest is deleted after the new build completes > (unless that oldest build is the last successful build, then it's kept until > the next successful build). Whichever builds are marked "never remove" would > form the archive. That would eliminate the apparent confusion caused by > having the archive at https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/?group_id=1299 > > The other factor is that a transition to Jenkins from Hudson is happening, > which is driving the desire to drop the Hudson based 1.2 builds. >
Another aspect of it, that build servers has a limited space (Marcus has to cut the number of builds , since they taking too much space). While on gforge we can afford to keep much more. Of course keeping latest 'frozen' build doesn't takes too much , except of a little nuisiance after a couple of years every time you open a jenkins, you will see a very long list of jobs, where only few of them actually needed. That's why i thinking that moving things to archive is preferable. In any way, i think everyone understands that nobody wants to hide existing versions from public eyes. Its only a question of finding appropriate place for them, after development is done. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
