On 16 April 2017 at 11:54, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> wrote: > 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/
I provisionally got an account with these guys last month, and now I've just seen this: https://blog.online.net/2017/04/27/scaleway-disruptive-armv8-cloud-servers/ So that's 3 build servers - 1x ARM7, 1x ARM8, and 1x x86. ;-)