On 23 June 2017 at 09:27, Andrew Beyer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Kai Willadsen <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> My main concern here is that I'd prefer something where we could keep >> build config in the repo (mostly for bus factor reasons). The cost isn't a >> huge deal, but if it can be cheap enough that I don't really have to care >> (or free) then so much the better. Mainly, this just doesn't really *need* >> to be CI; it can be manually triggered and/or happen on a release trigger. > > > I don't want to bikeshed this too much, so feel free to ignore if it's not > helpful: But given that you just want to do this manually/on release, would > it make more sense to just use one of the existing windows base images for > vagrant and spin up a local vm w/ some provisioning and a batch file or > msbuild project or whatever to kick off the build inside that? It would > require someone to have virtualbox locally when doing the build, but that's > free and not too onerous, and avoids the whole configuring/maintaining a > cloud service of some sort...you'd just have a vagrantfile and the > provisioning/build scripts in the repo that way.
I meant to respond to this, sorry! Yeah that's technically an option, though unless I misunderstand their use, this would still require a Windows license of some nature. I'm not against doing this otherwise. I'm also totally happy to carry config for different building options in a win32/ folder in the repo, as long as they're maintained and not a real maintenance burden. cheers, Kai _______________________________________________ meld-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/meld-list
