[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: docker for CI
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: docker for CI |
Date: |
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 13:51:48 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
<address@hidden> writes:
> Am Freitag, den 07.02.2020, 13:21 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
>>
>> Considerations
>> ==============
>>
>> * Because the build happens inside a container, we can test multiple
>> builds. We could build against guile 1.8 and 2.2 at the same time,
>> for example
>
> I don't agree that we need containers for this, you can easily set
> environment variables to make configure pick up the version you want to
> use.
I use stuff like
./configure GUILE_CONFIG=/usr/local/tmp/guile-1.8/bin/guile-config
GUILE=/usr/bin/guile
all the time.
>> * Because the "build binary" step reuses CCache results, it can
>> complete quickly.
>
> Maybe I don't fully understand the proposal, but:
> * if we only build the release image for every "official" tag, it will
> not provide quicker builds - especially towards the end of a cycle when
> many changes have accumulated.
> * if instead we build images for every commit, then incremental
> building of a provided patch will be fast(er) (_if_ it doesn't touch
> any header file). But what's then the point of using ccache, we can
> just trigger a full build?
Full builds are slower. But I really don't trust our dependencies all
too much, and for example Clang builds don't get a working set of
dependencies anyway (which is sort of curious since it is the modular
Clang that should be able to parse for them easily).
--
David Kastrup
- Re: RFC: docker for CI, (continued)
Re: RFC: docker for CI, Kevin Barry, 2020/02/07
Re: RFC: docker for CI, Werner LEMBERG, 2020/02/07
Re: RFC: docker for CI, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/02/08
- Re: RFC: docker for CI,
David Kastrup <=
Re: RFC: docker for CI, Janek Warchoł, 2020/02/08