[Vm-dev] hiearchy of build stages

[Nicolas Cellier]

Agree,
you see, now it's win32 pharo.cog.spur.lowcode which triggers the gcc error
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/OpenSmalltalk/vm/build/1.0.1209

It's like I will need the whole day with error/retry to make some green
status back (or it's presomptuous).

2018-04-02 15:29 GMT+02:00 Alistair Grant <akgrant0710 at gmail.com>:

>
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> Good idea.  If the build order can't be controlled...  I thought
> newspeak builds had been tagged so that they didn't cause the whole
> job to fail.  Maybe sista, lowcode and v3 builds could be marked the
> same?
>
> Cheers,
> Alistair
>
>
> On 2 April 2018 at 15:25, Nicolas Cellier
> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > there are lot of jobs at each opensmalltalk-vm commit like
> > https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/builds/361159455
> >
> > some of these jobs are of vital importance beacuse candidates for
> production, some have less because rather experimental (sista lowcode) or
> backward compatibility (v3).
> >
> > If ever it's technically possible, which I didn't check, could we agree
> at least on the order of build stages so that we build candidates for
> production first and at least know if commits have an impact on these?
> > Currently, a single failure of experimental brand will cut the whole
> feedback.
> >
> > It's more a temporary workaround than a long term solution, but let's
> make small steps, or we'll never see any progress.
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20180402/cfb5e322/attachment.html>