[squeak-dev] Re: [CI] Let's get together. (was Re: Re: [CI]
yanni at rogers.com
Thu Sep 8 14:30:47 UTC 2011
On 07/09/11 2:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> This one seems to be a collaboration between Yanni Chiu and Lukas
> Renggli; we might pay extra attention to this one, because for some
> reason I think it's what they're using for Pharo presently (though I may
> be wrong, don't recall why I think this) which means it's been working
> in production use:
That version was the original starting point. I don't maintain or update
it, anymore - is there a standard way to mark a package obsolete?
The package was evolved by Lukas and Philippe Marschall, and is found at:
IIUC, it is actively maintained, and is the basis of what runs the Pharo
> My plan was to take a survey of these, contact the maintainers, weigh
> the pros and cons, and report back to the list. If there was consensus
> around one of them, I'd run with that, if there wasn't, I would reinvent
> the wheel.
Do the analysis if you want, but IMHO, you should just go with whatever
is working for Pharo, and save the CI analysis effort for Squeak coding.
All you need to start, is a place to run Hudson/Jenkins, a Squeak VM, a
shell script to run the image used for the build, and a set of Squeak
start-up .st files that controls what gets loaded and/or tested.
A very old setup is at: http://hudson.jooshr.org/job/Squeak4.1/
I've disabled the CI job for some time now (last build was April 2010).
The comment says: "Build disabled, since it does not run in headless
mode anymore. Have not figured out the problem yet."
The community has to agree that the CI build is the top priority. If the
build fails, there is no higher priority item than getting the build to
work again. I'm sure that will happen, once the CI build job is setup
More information about the Squeak-dev