On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 14:41, Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Brian Curtin <brian.cur...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 14:12, Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:25 AM, David Robinow <drobi...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Cygwin is not really a supported platform. >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> [Ultimately somebody with an >>>> interest in cygwin will need to get active in python development. I've >>>> been meaning to do this but life gets in the way.] >>>> >>> >>> I was bitten by the lack of Cygwin support in 3.2 as well. >>> >>> IMO, python-dev needs continuous integration on a build farm that >>> includes representative platforms. Most of the machines in the farm could >>> be virtualboxes. >>> >>> I don't think the problem is so much that the right people haven't gotten >>> involved, as that the currently-involved people don't know when they're >>> breaking something for someone else due to the lack of continuous >>> integration. >>> >> >> We've had that for some time now: http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/ >> > > Good to know. Apologies for my incorrect assumption. Where do the e-mail > notifications of build and/or test failures go? > There might be an RSS feed or something, but I don't think there's any email notification. #python-dev on IRC receives live failure info. Other than that, you'd just have to look at one of the views of the fleet to see which build slaves are failing. > Shouldn't Cygwin be represented here? I don't see it in the list of > builds. > Probably, but it isn't represented because no one contributed a build slave for it. I know some of the other Windows build slave operators use Cygwin to some degree, but I'm not sure if anyone has looked into actually setting up a build slave for it. Some shops have a policy that nothing gets merged into trunk unless it's > passing critical automated tests... Would that work here? > We don't make much use of branching, but that would work if we did. If no one is actively contributing work on the Cygwin build then I don't see us holding up work in order to figure out any Cygwin-specific issues. There are several issues on the bug tracker about cygwin build issues, but >> to my knowledge, none of them have included successful patches. >> > > I think you'll find that most people using Cygwin would rather be working > on some other OS, but are forced to use Windows for policy reasons. It's > remains a rather significant need in many cases. > I don't disagree with that, but if there's no one contributing Cygwin patches then it will probably just die off and we'll have situations like the current one where it doesn't build. A great majority of the contributing developers are on UNIX-based systems with no access to Windows. A small handful, myself included, are Windows users, but I don't think any of us use Cygwin (I don't). Native Windows builds do appear to be represented. Is there any reason not > to set up a buildbot for Cygwin on the same (virtual?) hardware? > Besides the time and effort needed to set it up and occasionally look over it, no. We'd have to have a successfully compiling Cygwin build before we think about adding a build slave for it. I wouldn't be opposed to hosting this myself, but I need to steal some time and get my Windows 2008 build slave back to some form of a functional system - it has been up and down for a few months now. If someone else is interested, go ahead.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
