Re: Continuous Build Server. Was: NEED HELP: getting the trunk back in order

[Nuno Santos]

Rupert Smith wrote:
The only condition they asked for is that we put an acknowledgement on
the project web site.
If RedHat are going to supply a box or two (need Windows and Linux),
available on the internet, that would be ideal. I was thinking of
getting it running here and figuring out if I can publish a results
page to the Wiki, that would be a start anyway. Can add email spamming
later.

Our original plan was for an internal build/test machine, which could 
email status of an svn-based build to any interested qpid developers. 
I'm not certain about our lab policies but I don't think we would be 
able to make it an external facing machine available for general project 
use, this is something that I'll need to follow up with Carl and our lab 
manager.

Will also need to check regarding the licensing issue... our plan was to 
use CruiseControl but I see in the chart that you mentioned -- very 
useful, btw -- that it doesn't directly support "make", so we have to 
see if we can somehow integrate the C++ build with CruiseControl, or opt 
for a different continuous build tool.

Nuno

On 3/6/07, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 on the free license - but what are the conditions on its use?  
Obviously
any continuous build system will have to be hosted on some equipment.  
How
many installations is the license offer good for?  If an instance is 
to be
hosted inside the company which employs one of the contributors what 
are the
implications...

I have discussed offline with a couple of the guys from RedHat that they
will be having their own continuous build machine, which they could
configure to mail the group with build/test failures.  We only want one
continuous build machine doing this or we'll be spamming ourselves
unnecessarily.  On the other hand the RedHat guys may not want to go 
the the
expense of hosting tests on other platforms / operating systems :-) 
things
that might be more important to those of us who work in a heterogeneous
environment.

Cheers,
Rob

On 06/03/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have tried out a few different build servers. I started by looking
> at this feature matrix (probably not entirely complete or up to date):
>
>
> 
http://damagecontrol.codehaus.org/Continuous+Integration+Server+Feature+Matrix 

>
> As you can see there are two that have more green ticks than the
> others. Anthill Pro and Viewtier Parabuild. I tried both. Anthill Pro
> looks very good (maven build running on my machine, configured in 18
> minutes!). Parabuild looked pretty awfull.
>
> Anthill Pro have offered to give us a free licence as they do this for
> open source projects. The Apache Geronimo project has already set the
> precedent by also using Anthill Pro 3. They've had their own debate,
> around the subject of wether or not they should be using non-free,
> non-open source software and whether or not using it will force people
> building from a checkout to also use it. Read the debate here:
>
>
> 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200612.mbox/ajax/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

>
> To summarize:
>
> It won't force people to be dependant on anthill, because the build
> server and build system are seperate things. The build system is
> maven, make, msbuild etc. All anthill does is call it periodically to
> do the build. The build system will still need to be maintained and
> kept in working order for every day devlopment activity from the
> command line.
>
> As for non-free, non-os software. We already use Jira, Confluence, not
> to mention MsBuild and Visual Studio, which kind of takes the moral
> argument out of that point of view.
>
> I'd like to propose that we accept Urban Code's kind offer of a free
> licence. Their product is the only one which can do a fully automated
> build over multiple languages and operating systems, call our test
> scripts and collate the results.
>
> Rupert
>