[squeak-dev] Re: [CI] Let's get together. (was Re: Re: [CI] Security)

Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 21:04:19 UTC 2011

Thanks Yanni, yes I noticed that there was a note on the SS page pointing at
Lukas' personal SS setup. I pulled the latest from there and am exploring it


On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Yanni Chiu <yanni at rogers.com> wrote:

> 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:
>> http://www.squeaksource.com/**HudsonBuild<http://www.squeaksource.com/HudsonBuild>
> 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:
> http://source.lukas-renggli.**ch/hudson.html<http://source.lukas-renggli.ch/hudson.html>
> https://github.com/renggli/**builder <https://github.com/renggli/builder>
> IIUC, it is actively maintained, and is the basis of what runs the Pharo CI
> builds.
>  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/<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 and
> running.

Casey Ransberger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20110908/57e6311c/attachment.htm

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list