[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Continuous integration
From: |
Ted Zlatanov |
Subject: |
Re: Continuous integration |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:08:20 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
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
- Re: Continuous integration,
Ted Zlatanov <=