[CI] I'll come in again.

No one expects continuous integration.

On 22 June 2011 21:20, Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> No one expects continuous integration.
> Some of us really want it, though. I'm going to see about getting it done.
> Feel free to chime in on this thread if you have thoughts you'd like to
> share on the subject.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, give me a decent VM on 64-bit FreeBSD and
I'll set up Hudson or Jenkins or whatever.

I've tried a few times, and just ran out of energy. I know folks have
installed on their _32 bit_ machines. Randal, do you have one lying
around?

frank

>>>>> "Frank" == Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> writes:

Frank> I've tried a few times, and just ran out of energy. I know folks have
Frank> installed on their _32 bit_ machines. Randal, do you have one lying
Frank> around?

Not lying around.  Just a few live ones. :)

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion

Frank! Welcome aboard.

I note: in an ideal world, we would have a variety of hosts systems running the tests. But this will be expensive.

I'd like to find the best single free configuration, and I think FreeBSD (or a variant) would be a good choice, simply for the legendary stability of the this system, and its wealth of well-written documentation.

In any event, I believe that the choice of host system is perpendicular to the cause. Jenkins will run anywhere. I'd like to avoid getting bogged down in such details, but I'd also prefer to avoid doing this twice in the same year.

If I may ask, what is your motivation for seeking a 64-bit host?

On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ah: I forgot to mention that we will have the support of the Squeak Oversight Board. This is probably worth stating.

On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]> wrote:

Randal, what's your opinion: should we get started on one of these BSD boxes, or should we drop in on existing infrastructure, and then repeat the effort when the BSD hosts become generally available?

I'll stick it through either way, but I'm looking to build consensus on what the right course of action is.

On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:32 PM, [hidden email] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:

>>>>> "Casey" == Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]> writes:

Casey> Randal, what's your opinion: should we get started on one of
Casey> these BSD boxes, or should we drop in on existing infrastructure,
Casey> and then repeat the effort when the BSD hosts become generally
Casey> available?  I'll stick it through either way, but I'm looking to
Casey> build consensus on what the right course of action is.

The FreeBSD ports is a superset of just about everything else, so it
won't matter much. Just a matter of typing the right "portmaster"
commands.

If we do end up with something that will run only on Linux, that's also
usually not a problem, as the FreeBSD install can be tweaked to
understand the Linux ABI natively on a per-binary basis.  (Not an
emulation, but native syscalls that are Linux syscalls instead of
FreeBSD ABI calls.)

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion

>>>>> "Randal" == Randal L Schwartz <[hidden email]> writes:

>>>>> "Casey" == Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]> writes:
Casey> Randal, what's your opinion: should we get started on one of
Casey> these BSD boxes, or should we drop in on existing infrastructure,
Casey> and then repeat the effort when the BSD hosts become generally
Casey> available?  I'll stick it through either way, but I'm looking to
Casey> build consensus on what the right course of action is.

Randal> The FreeBSD ports is a superset of just about everything else, so it
Randal> won't matter much. Just a matter of typing the right "portmaster"
Randal> commands.

Oh, even simpler, see
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/FreeBSD

I don't see a Jenkins port just yet, but they haven't diverged far so it
shouldn't be hard to bring up.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion

On 22 June 2011 23:36, Randal L. Schwartz <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've installed Hudson in the meantime, but which Tomcat should I use?
There are www/tomcat{-native, 41, 55, 6, 7} ports. I would _guess 7 is
what we want...?

frank

On 22.06.2011, at 22:20, Casey Ransberger wrote:

> No one expects continuous integration.

Heresy! Fetch the rack!

> Some of us really want it, though. I'm going to see about getting it done.
>
> Feel free to chime in on this thread if you have thoughts you'd like to share on the subject.

Having a build server would be really helpful, IMHO. Glad you're taking it up again!

Looking forward to see the first blame mails delivered to squeak-dev. We'll torture the responsible with virtual cushions, at the least!

- Bert -

On 23/06/11 5:18 AM, Frank Shearar wrote:
>
> I've installed Hudson in the meantime, but which Tomcat should I use?
> There are www/tomcat{-native, 41, 55, 6, 7} ports. I would _guess 7 is
> what we want...?

You don't need Tomcat. Hudson listens on port 8080 out of the box.
Here's my startup script (uses port 9090).
====
#!/bin/sh -x

WARFILE=$HOME/apps/hudson/hudson.war
LOGFILE=hudson.log

nohup java -jar $WARFILE --httpPort=9090 > $LOGFILE 2>&1 &
====

On 23 June 2011 14:30, Yanni Chiu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ah thanks, Yanni. I'll try it out right away.

frank