On 1/4/07, Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> > Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 markwkm@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> 1. Pull source directly from repositories (cvs, git, etc.) PLM
> > >> doesn't really track actually scm repositories. It requires
> > >> directories of source code to be traversed, which are set up by
> > >> creating mirrors.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that a better approach might be to mirror the CVS repo --
> > > or at least make that an option -- and pull the sources locally. Having to
> > > pull down >100MB of data for every build might be onerous to some build
> > > farm members.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I am not clear about what is being proposed. Currently buildfarm syncs
> > against (or pulls a fresh copy from, depending on configuration) either
> > the main anoncvs repo or a mirror (which you can get using cvsup or rsync,
> > among other mechanisms). I can imagine a mechanism in which we pull
> > certain patches from a patch server (maybe using an RSS feed, or a SOAP
> > call?) which could be applied before the run. I wouldn't want to couple
> > things much more closely than that.
>
> With PLM, you could test patches against various code branches. I'd
> guessed Mark would want to provide this capability.
Yeah, that pretty much covers it.
> Pulling branches from
> anonvcvs regularly might be burdensome bandwidth-wise. So, like you say, a
> local mirror would be beneficial for patch testing.
Right some sort of local mirror would definitely speed things up.
> > The patches would need to be vetted first, or no sane buildfarm owner will
> > want to use them.
>
> It would be nice if there could be a class of trusted users whose patches
> would not have to be vetted.
PLM's authentication is tied to OSDL's internal authentication system,
but some I imagine setting up accounts and trusting specific users
would be an easy first try.
Regards,
Mark