Re: Continuous integration

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:25:28 -0700 John Wiegley <address@hidden> wrote: 

JW> There has been some exploration done on GitLab already, I wonder if they 
have
JW> some data to share with you?

I think everyone is waiting. Besides me, no one else seems to have used
the test GitLab instance. I strongly encourage everyone to look around
the Hydra instance we use today, GitLab, BuildBot, and other CI systems
they may know.

>From the responses, here are the criteria for "a helpful CI" as John put it:

Builds:

* build logs and good notifications
* good platform coverage
* clean builds of all branches+commits and reporting on each one's build
* local replicability of build environment via Docker or VM
* store build artifacts (packages, tarballs, etc.)

UI:

* good UI/UX and multiple requests for a Web GUI too
* support special build requests: specific branch, target, test (via web or 
email)

Software and maintainer/company:

* Free software
* probable long-term support; ie they have a solid business plan
* personal logins to comment on builds or specific code

Nice to have:

* pull request awareness (not necessarily PRs in the CI system itself)
* code review capability

In order to keep the evaluation objective, I'll keep out of the voting.
If you just want to vote, please send your votes to me directly by
e-mail. But please feel free to vote and comment here; just make sure
to make it clear that you're voting so I can keep track.

Thanks
Ted