On 9.5.2014 00:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 8.5.2014 23:48, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 05/08/2014 05:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really don't get what your objection to the setup is. And no, I
>>>> don't want them to run concurrently, I'd rather spread out the
>>>> cycles.
>>> I wasn't objecting, merely an observation. Note that Tomas
>>> mentioned he's okay with running 4 builds at once. My main point
>>> here, really, is that having a larger number of animals shouldn't
>>> be an impediment for a more complex permutation of configurations,
>>> if he's okay with doing that. I assume you wouldn't object to my
>>> approving four extra animals running on the same machine, if Tomas
>>> wants to go for that.
>
> So, if I get this right, the proposal is to have 7 animals:
>
>
> 1) all branches/locales, frequent builds (every few hours)
> magpie - gcc
> fulmar - icc
> treepie - clang
>
> 2) single branch/locale, CLOBBER, built once a week
> magpie2 - gcc
> fulmar2 - icc
> treepie - clang
>
> 3) single branch/locale, recursive CLOBBER, built once a month
>
>
> I don't particularly mind the number of animals, although I was shooting
> for lower number.
>
> The only question is - should we use 3 animals for the recursive CLOBBER
> too? I mean, one for each compiler?
OK. I've switched the three original animals (magpie, fulmar, treepie)
back to the original configuration (no clobber, all branches, multiple
locales).
And I've requested 6 more animals - two for each compiler. One set for
tests with basic CLOBBER, one set for recursive CLOBBER.
Each group will run in a separate VM, in a round-robin manner.
regards
Tomas