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. Pulling branches from
anonvcvs regularly might be burdensome bandwidth-wise. So, like you say, a
local mirror would be beneficial for patch testing.
> 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.
Thanks,
Gavin