On 16 April 2017 at 11:20, Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > Am Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:13:50 +0200 > schrieb Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>: > >> >> I asked at a recent D meetup about what gitlab CI used as their >> backing platform, and it seems like it's a front for TravisCI. YMMV, >> but I found the Travis platform to be too slow (it was struggling to >> even build GDC in under 40 minutes), and too limiting to be used as a >> CI for large projects. > > That's probably for the hosted gitlab solution though. For self-hosted > gitlab you can set up custom machines as gitlab workers. The biggest > drawback here is missing gitlab integration. > >> >> Johannes, what if I get a couple new small boxes, one ARM, one >> non-descriptive x86. The project site and binary downloads could then >> be used to the non-descriptive box, meanwhile the ARM box and the >> existing server can be turned into a build servers - there's enough >> disk space and memory on the current server to have a at least half a >> dozen build environments on the current server, testing also i386 and >> x32 would be beneficial along with any number cross-compilers >> (testsuite can be ran with runnable tests disabled). > > Sounds like a plan. What CI server should we use though? >
I was thinking of keeping it simple, buildbot maybe? http://buildbot.net/