[V3dot10] Prototyping an autobuild system

Keith Hodges keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Jan 21 17:44:25 UTC 2007

> I don't understand what the purpose is.  Is this for testing proposed
> changes to the standard image?  If so, it seems like overkill.  Can
If you are working on your own to change just your image and test it 
then yes it is overkill.

When a bug fix in the base of 3.9, effects, 3.9-stable 3.9-unstable 
3.9-dev, 3.9 full and 3.9-bloated, then it is nice to have someone else 
do all the work for you.

You ask: How do you use it? Lets say you are harvesting some fixes.

1. Lets say add five fixes that you think should work, moving them from 
the From39To391MantisFixes-unstable branch to the stable branch in 

2. You update the page MakeRelease391
incrementing the build number and adding any relevant comments.

The auto build system will build 3.9.1-stable, 3.9.1-unstable, 
3.9.1-dev, 3.9.1-full, and 3.9.1-bloated and present test reports on all 
of them.
> you explain how you expect people to use the system?  I'd more focus
> on how the system would be used and less on how it would be
> implemented.

> I do not think that a test server needs to save images.  If it is
> building images from a script then anybody who wants an image can
> build it.  
If that was the case then, the process we need is already complete. We 
have the scripts already they just need refining. You could also say, if 
anyone wants to see the results for testing an image, they can build 
that image and test it themselves. Why then would we need a test server 
at all?
> Many images will not have a GUI so you won't be able to
> have TestRunner open anyway.
Hence TextRunner from SSpec, is my proposed candidate for when 
TestRunner has no GUI. This would work well with REPLServer.

best regards


Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html

More information about the V3dot10 mailing list