+1 Doru
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>wrote: > Very nice! > > Another thing we need to look at at some point is to make different VM > build for each major version. > > The idea is that there is a dedicated build of the VM for "Pharo3", which > would be frozen with the release, > and then we start with a VM build for "Pharo4". > > I even want them to have the major version number is the binary, so that > it is easy to install "Pharo3" in Parallel > to "Pharo4". > > With this we free ourselves from needed the VM to be at the same time > forward *and* backward compatible. > And we make sure that the VM that people use for the stable release does > not change. > > Marcus > > On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi! > > We were discussing over here about it, so I decided to finally start > something on the front of an acceptance test for our VM. > > The core idea is to stress the VM to test its stability and find bugs and > regressions. > > So I created the ci job in [1] which does: > - use latest vm > - use 2.0 latest image > - loads seaside and moose on it > - runs all tests > > Right now it runs on 6 different slaves, getting different results on > each, which we should take care about :). > > Also there are some things on it that should be improved easily: > - once 2.0 summer is released this job should use that version instead of > the "latest" 2.0 > - right now we are loading the development version of moose because moose > 4.8 is not released (but will be soon :) > > And of course, now we have them, we can improve them (and make them run > because not all of them do :D). > > Guille > > [1] https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/VM/job/PharoVM-AcceptanceTest/ > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
