Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
+1 for enabling branch build option, but probably this needs some kind of limitation on who may build how often or which branches can be built how often or so... just a suggestion. Could need this for my fracture_modifier branch indeed :) scorpion81 Am Samstag, den 11.10.2014, 15:59 +0200 schrieb Ton Roosendaal: > Hi, > > I've asked Sergey to disable the testbuild branch from automatic building. > This is currently leading to a confusing situation. People have no idea > what's the code that is in it. It's even being used to apply patches from the > tracker on it. This information is invisible for our website visitors. > > Worse is that visitors think it's the official release test build, and not a > testing branch for coders only. > > We should do this better communicated. Can we just back to the old option > that you can build branches? > This way that branch build gets properly named and timestamped. > > The only problem is that too many builds might flood the bot's list of > builds. It shouldn't be too hard to make a delete button on that page for old > ones (for admins)? > > Laters, > > -Ton- > > > Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > > > > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
I’m not happy at all with both the decision and the way it was taken. Fyi, I was the one who spent a fair amount of time some months agon setting this up, and I think it has proven to be really really useful for all wip projects around. Further more, I do not see any reason to just cut this out out of the blue, there was no urgency at all here. And I do not even really understand the root of the issue, imho people who are not able to make a distinction between builds tagged as 'official' and builds tagged as 'testbuild' have nothing to do on builder.b.o. But even though, imho it would have been much nicer to ask to add some way to delete testbuilds from the server, again see no urgency at all here that could justify this discontinuation. Adding back build of all branches will just create much much more mess, we won’t gain anything. Oh, and people that cannot understand what 'testbuild' means won’t be able either to distinguish from master and branches builds - even less I’d say. Very disapointed here! Bastien Le 11/10/2014 15:59, Ton Roosendaal a écrit : > Hi, > > I've asked Sergey to disable the testbuild branch from automatic building. > This is currently leading to a confusing situation. People have no idea > what's the code that is in it. It's even being used to apply patches from the > tracker on it. This information is invisible for our website visitors. > > Worse is that visitors think it's the official release test build, and not a > testing branch for coders only. > > We should do this better communicated. Can we just back to the old option > that you can build branches? > This way that branch build gets properly named and timestamped. > > The only problem is that too many builds might flood the bot's list of > builds. It shouldn't be too hard to make a delete button on that page for old > ones (for admins)? > > Laters, > > -Ton- > > > Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > > > > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Bastien, configuration is still there, it's all just commented out (in fact it's just a one-liner). It might be used for a "refined" tesbuild process. I'm not happy with the idea of being able to build any of the branches. it'll get out of control real easily. IMO, better thing to do would be to keep process the same and just tweak uploader so it puts testbuild to a separate folder, not visible from the web UI, but available with some direct location like "https://builder.blender.org/testbuilds";, so developers cn poke buildbot and re-upload builds to some more permanent location or just let users to quickly test changes. Can look into this, but not gonna to do it during my spare time. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Bastien Montagne wrote: > I’m not happy at all with both the decision and the way it was taken. > Fyi, I was the one who spent a fair amount of time some months agon > setting this up, and I think it has proven to be really really useful > for all wip projects around. > > Further more, I do not see any reason to just cut this out out of the > blue, there was no urgency at all here. And I do not even really > understand the root of the issue, imho people who are not able to make a > distinction between builds tagged as 'official' and builds tagged as > 'testbuild' have nothing to do on builder.b.o. > > But even though, imho it would have been much nicer to ask to add some > way to delete testbuilds from the server, again see no urgency at all > here that could justify this discontinuation. > > Adding back build of all branches will just create much much more mess, > we won’t gain anything. Oh, and people that cannot understand what > 'testbuild' means won’t be able either to distinguish from master and > branches builds - even less I’d say. > > Very disapointed here! > Bastien > > Le 11/10/2014 15:59, Ton Roosendaal a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > I've asked Sergey to disable the testbuild branch from automatic > building. > > This is currently leading to a confusing situation. People have no idea > what's the code that is in it. It's even being used to apply patches from > the tracker on it. This information is invisible for our website visitors. > > > > Worse is that visitors think it's the official release test build, and > not a testing branch for coders only. > > > > We should do this better communicated. Can we just back to the old > option that you can build branches? > > This way that branch build gets properly named and timestamped. > > > > The only problem is that too many builds might flood the bot's list of > builds. It shouldn't be too hard to make a delete button on that page for > old ones (for admins)? > > > > Laters, > > > > -Ton- > > > > > > Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > > Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > > Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > > > > > > > > ___ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > Bf-committers@blender.org > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Hi Bastien, Sorry, I've asked around and had the impression Sergey added the feature on builder.blender.org. The fact that building branches on buildbot is useful is not disputed. It's just not acceptable to offer an official build for download on a popular page on blender.org, with unknown patches or branches applied. Let's just keep the lines short and discuss decisions like this together well? Laters, -Ton- Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands On 11 Oct, 2014, at 18:24, Bastien Montagne wrote: > I’m not happy at all with both the decision and the way it was taken. > Fyi, I was the one who spent a fair amount of time some months agon > setting this up, and I think it has proven to be really really useful > for all wip projects around. > > Further more, I do not see any reason to just cut this out out of the > blue, there was no urgency at all here. And I do not even really > understand the root of the issue, imho people who are not able to make a > distinction between builds tagged as 'official' and builds tagged as > 'testbuild' have nothing to do on builder.b.o. > > But even though, imho it would have been much nicer to ask to add some > way to delete testbuilds from the server, again see no urgency at all > here that could justify this discontinuation. > > Adding back build of all branches will just create much much more mess, > we won’t gain anything. Oh, and people that cannot understand what > 'testbuild' means won’t be able either to distinguish from master and > branches builds - even less I’d say. > > Very disapointed here! > Bastien > > Le 11/10/2014 15:59, Ton Roosendaal a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> I've asked Sergey to disable the testbuild branch from automatic building. >> This is currently leading to a confusing situation. People have no idea >> what's the code that is in it. It's even being used to apply patches from >> the tracker on it. This information is invisible for our website visitors. >> >> Worse is that visitors think it's the official release test build, and not a >> testing branch for coders only. >> >> We should do this better communicated. Can we just back to the old option >> that you can build branches? >> This way that branch build gets properly named and timestamped. >> >> The only problem is that too many builds might flood the bot's list of >> builds. It shouldn't be too hard to make a delete button on that page for >> old ones (for admins)? >> >> Laters, >> >> -Ton- >> >> >> Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org >> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute >> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands >> >> >> >> ___ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> Bf-committers@blender.org >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
It _had been_ discussed several times at least. Starting from discussion in #lbendercoders between me, Dan, Bastien and even Ton. Then once it was all set up (and i believe some discussion happened in the ML as well). Once all the changes to the infrastructure were done it was announced in the ML: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2014-July/043948.html In such a situation it's real weird to have a post-factum "it should have never been done this way". As an addition to the previous suggestion: - We can as well just put a REAL HUGE BANNER on top of the experimental builds just to stress once again that they're experimental if it'll be considered useful to have those builds listed to public. - We can rename "testbuild" to something like "devbuild" (as developer-build) or "experimental" to prevent possible confusion with the testbuilds being done as a part of the release build. On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote: > Hi Bastien, > > Sorry, I've asked around and had the impression Sergey added the feature > on builder.blender.org. > > The fact that building branches on buildbot is useful is not disputed. > It's just not acceptable to offer an official build for download on a > popular page on blender.org, with unknown patches or branches applied. > > Let's just keep the lines short and discuss decisions like this together > well? > > Laters, > > -Ton- > > > Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > > > > On 11 Oct, 2014, at 18:24, Bastien Montagne wrote: > > > I’m not happy at all with both the decision and the way it was taken. > > Fyi, I was the one who spent a fair amount of time some months agon > > setting this up, and I think it has proven to be really really useful > > for all wip projects around. > > > > Further more, I do not see any reason to just cut this out out of the > > blue, there was no urgency at all here. And I do not even really > > understand the root of the issue, imho people who are not able to make a > > distinction between builds tagged as 'official' and builds tagged as > > 'testbuild' have nothing to do on builder.b.o. > > > > But even though, imho it would have been much nicer to ask to add some > > way to delete testbuilds from the server, again see no urgency at all > > here that could justify this discontinuation. > > > > Adding back build of all branches will just create much much more mess, > > we won’t gain anything. Oh, and people that cannot understand what > > 'testbuild' means won’t be able either to distinguish from master and > > branches builds - even less I’d say. > > > > Very disapointed here! > > Bastien > > > > Le 11/10/2014 15:59, Ton Roosendaal a écrit : > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've asked Sergey to disable the testbuild branch from automatic > building. > >> This is currently leading to a confusing situation. People have no idea > what's the code that is in it. It's even being used to apply patches from > the tracker on it. This information is invisible for our website visitors. > >> > >> Worse is that visitors think it's the official release test build, and > not a testing branch for coders only. > >> > >> We should do this better communicated. Can we just back to the old > option that you can build branches? > >> This way that branch build gets properly named and timestamped. > >> > >> The only problem is that too many builds might flood the bot's list of > builds. It shouldn't be too hard to make a delete button on that page for > old ones (for admins)? > >> > >> Laters, > >> > >> -Ton- > >> > >> > >> Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > >> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > >> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> Bf-committers mailing list > >> Bf-committers@blender.org > >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > >> > > > > ___ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > Bf-committers@blender.org > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in master_unpack.py, something like: diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': sys.exit(1) # extract -directory = 'public_html/download' +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else 'public_html/download/testbuilds' try: zf = z.open(package) public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, otherwise. As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them anyway. And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good to me. Bastien Le 11/10/2014 20:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > It _had been_ discussed several times at least. Starting from discussion in > #lbendercoders between me, Dan, Bastien and even Ton. Then once it was all > set up (and i believe some discussion happened in the ML as well). Once all > the changes to the infrastructure were done it was announced in the ML: > http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2014-July/043948.html In > such a situation it's real weird to have a post-factum "it should have > never been done this way". > > As an addition to the previous suggestion: > - We can as well just put a REAL HUGE BANNER on top of the experimental > builds just to stress once again that they're experimental if it'll be > considered useful to have those builds listed to public. > - We can rename "testbuild" to something like "devbuild" (as > developer-build) or "experimental" to prevent possible confusion with the > testbuilds being done as a part of the release build. > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote: > >> Hi Bastien, >> >> Sorry, I've asked around and had the impression Sergey added the feature >> on builder.blender.org. >> >> The fact that building branches on buildbot is useful is not disputed. >> It's just not acceptable to offer an official build for download on a >> popular page on blender.org, with unknown patches or branches applied. >> >> Let's just keep the lines short and discuss decisions like this together >> well? >> >> Laters, >> >> -Ton- >> >> >> Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org >> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute >> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands >> >> >> >> On 11 Oct, 2014, at 18:24, Bastien Montagne wrote: >> >>> I’m not happy at all with both the decision and the way it was taken. >>> Fyi, I was the one who spent a fair amount of time some months agon >>> setting this up, and I think it has proven to be really really useful >>> for all wip projects around. >>> >>> Further more, I do not see any reason to just cut this out out of the >>> blue, there was no urgency at all here. And I do not even really >>> understand the root of the issue, imho people who are not able to make a >>> distinction between builds tagged as 'official' and builds tagged as >>> 'testbuild' have nothing to do on builder.b.o. >>> >>> But even though, imho it would have been much nicer to ask to add some >>> way to delete testbuilds from the server, again see no urgency at all >>> here that could justify this discontinuation. >>> >>> Adding back build of all branches will just create much much more mess, >>> we won’t gain anything. Oh, and people that cannot understand what >>> 'testbuild' means won’t be able either to distinguish from master and >>> branches builds - even less I’d say. >>> >>> Very disapointed here! >>> Bastien >>> >>> Le 11/10/2014 15:59, Ton Roosendaal a écrit : Hi, I've asked Sergey to disable the testbuild branch from automatic >> building. This is currently leading to a confusing situation. People have no idea >> what's the code that is in it. It's even being used to apply patches from >> the tracker on it. This information is invisible for our website visitors. Worse is that visitors think it's the official release test build, and >> not a testing branch for coders only. We should do this better communicated. Can we just back to the old >> option that you can build branches? This way that branch build gets properly named and timestamped. The only problem is that too many builds might flood the bot's list of >> builds. It shouldn't be too hard to make a delete button on that page for >> old ones (for admins)
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a code in the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" wrote: > Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I > fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. > > In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in > master_unpack.py, something like: > > diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 > --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': > sys.exit(1) > > # extract > -directory = 'public_html/download' > +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else > 'public_html/download/testbuilds' > > try: > zf = z.open(package) > > public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. > > On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the > download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for > users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, otherwise. > > As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed > at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them anyway. > > And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good > to me. > > Bastien > > Le 11/10/2014 20:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > > It _had been_ discussed several times at least. Starting from discussion > in > > #lbendercoders between me, Dan, Bastien and even Ton. Then once it was > all > > set up (and i believe some discussion happened in the ML as well). Once > all > > the changes to the infrastructure were done it was announced in the ML: > > http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2014-July/043948.html > In > > such a situation it's real weird to have a post-factum "it should have > > never been done this way". > > > > As an addition to the previous suggestion: > > - We can as well just put a REAL HUGE BANNER on top of the experimental > > builds just to stress once again that they're experimental if it'll be > > considered useful to have those builds listed to public. > > - We can rename "testbuild" to something like "devbuild" (as > > developer-build) or "experimental" to prevent possible confusion with the > > testbuilds being done as a part of the release build. > > > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Ton Roosendaal > wrote: > > > >> Hi Bastien, > >> > >> Sorry, I've asked around and had the impression Sergey added the feature > >> on builder.blender.org. > >> > >> The fact that building branches on buildbot is useful is not disputed. > >> It's just not acceptable to offer an official build for download on a > >> popular page on blender.org, with unknown patches or branches applied. > >> > >> Let's just keep the lines short and discuss decisions like this together > >> well? > >> > >> Laters, > >> > >> -Ton- > >> > >> > >> Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > >> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > >> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11 Oct, 2014, at 18:24, Bastien Montagne wrote: > >> > >>> I’m not happy at all with both the decision and the way it was taken. > >>> Fyi, I was the one who spent a fair amount of time some months agon > >>> setting this up, and I think it has proven to be really really useful > >>> for all wip projects around. > >>> > >>> Further more, I do not see any reason to just cut this out out of the > >>> blue, there was no urgency at all here. And I do not even really > >>> understand the root of the issue, imho people who are not able to make > a > >>> distinction between builds tagged as 'official' and builds tagged as > >>> 'testbuild' have nothing to do on builder.b.o. > >>> > >>> But even though, imho it would have been much nicer to ask to add some > >>> way to delete testbuilds from the server, again see no urgency at all > >>> here that could justify this discontinuation. > >>> > >>> Adding back build of all branches will just create much much more mess, > >>> we won’t gain anything. Oh, and people that cannot understand what > >>> 'testbuild' means won’t be able either to distinguish from master and > >>> branches builds - even less I’d say. > >>> > >>> Very disapointed here! > >>> Bastien > >>> > >>> Le 11/10/2014 15:59, Ton Roosendaal a écrit : > Hi, > > I've asked Sergey to disable the testbuild branch from automatic > >> building. > This is currently leading to a confusing situation. People have no > idea > >> what's the code that is in it. It's even being used to apply patches > from > >> the tracker on it. This information is invisible for our website > visitors. > Worse is that visitors think it's the official release test buil
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a code in > the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. > On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" wrote: > >> Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I >> fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. >> >> In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in >> master_unpack.py, something like: >> >> diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 >> --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': >>sys.exit(1) >> >># extract >> -directory = 'public_html/download' >> +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else >> 'public_html/download/testbuilds' >> >>try: >>zf = z.open(package) >> >> public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. >> >> On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the >> download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for >> users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, otherwise. >> >> As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed >> at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them anyway. >> >> And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good >> to me. >> >> Bastien >> >> Le 11/10/2014 20:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : >>> It _had been_ discussed several times at least. Starting from discussion >> in >>> #lbendercoders between me, Dan, Bastien and even Ton. Then once it was >> all >>> set up (and i believe some discussion happened in the ML as well). Once >> all >>> the changes to the infrastructure were done it was announced in the ML: >>> http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2014-July/043948.html >> In >>> such a situation it's real weird to have a post-factum "it should have >>> never been done this way". >>> >>> As an addition to the previous suggestion: >>> - We can as well just put a REAL HUGE BANNER on top of the experimental >>> builds just to stress once again that they're experimental if it'll be >>> considered useful to have those builds listed to public. >>> - We can rename "testbuild" to something like "devbuild" (as >>> developer-build) or "experimental" to prevent possible confusion with the >>> testbuilds being done as a part of the release build. >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Ton Roosendaal >> wrote: Hi Bastien, Sorry, I've asked around and had the impression Sergey added the feature on builder.blender.org. The fact that building branches on buildbot is useful is not disputed. It's just not acceptable to offer an official build for download on a popular page on blender.org, with unknown patches or branches applied. Let's just keep the lines short and discuss decisions like this together well? Laters, -Ton- Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands On 11 Oct, 2014, at 18:24, Bastien Montagne wrote: > I’m not happy at all with both the decision and the way it was taken. > Fyi, I was the one who spent a fair amount of time some months agon > setting this up, and I think it has proven to be really really useful > for all wip projects around. > > Further more, I do not see any reason to just cut this out out of the > blue, there was no urgency at all here. And I do not even really > understand the root of the issue, imho people who are not able to make >> a > distinction between builds tagged as 'official' and builds tagged as > 'testbuild' have nothing to do on builder.b.o. > > But even though, imho it would have been much nicer to ask to add some > way to delete testbuilds from the server, again see no urgency at all > here that could justify this discontinuation. > > Adding back build of all branches will just create much much more mess, > we won’t gain anything. Oh, and people that cannot understand what > 'testbuild' means won’t be able either to distinguish from master and > branches builds - even less I’d say. > > Very disapointed here! > Bastien > > Le 11/10/2014 15:59, Ton Roosendaal a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> I've asked Sergey to disable the testbuild branch from automatic building. >> This is currently leading to a confusing situation. People have no >> idea what's the code that is in it. It's even being used to apply patches >> from the trac
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne wrote: > Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) > > Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > > Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a code in > > the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. > > On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" > wrote: > > > >> Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I > >> fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. > >> > >> In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in > >> master_unpack.py, something like: > >> > >> diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >> b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >> index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 > >> --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >> +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': > >>sys.exit(1) > >> > >># extract > >> -directory = 'public_html/download' > >> +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else > >> 'public_html/download/testbuilds' > >> > >>try: > >>zf = z.open(package) > >> > >> public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. > >> > >> On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the > >> download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for > >> users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, > otherwise. > >> > >> As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed > >> at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them > anyway. > >> > >> And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good > >> to me. > >> > >> Bastien > >> > >> Le 11/10/2014 20:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > >>> It _had been_ discussed several times at least. Starting from > discussion > >> in > >>> #lbendercoders between me, Dan, Bastien and even Ton. Then once it was > >> all > >>> set up (and i believe some discussion happened in the ML as well). Once > >> all > >>> the changes to the infrastructure were done it was announced in the ML: > >>> http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2014-July/043948.html > >> In > >>> such a situation it's real weird to have a post-factum "it should have > >>> never been done this way". > >>> > >>> As an addition to the previous suggestion: > >>> - We can as well just put a REAL HUGE BANNER on top of the experimental > >>> builds just to stress once again that they're experimental if it'll be > >>> considered useful to have those builds listed to public. > >>> - We can rename "testbuild" to something like "devbuild" (as > >>> developer-build) or "experimental" to prevent possible confusion with > the > >>> testbuilds being done as a part of the release build. > >>> > >>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Ton Roosendaal > >> wrote: > Hi Bastien, > > Sorry, I've asked around and had the impression Sergey added the > feature > on builder.blender.org. > > The fact that building branches on buildbot is useful is not disputed. > It's just not acceptable to offer an official build for download on a > popular page on blender.org, with unknown patches or branches > applied. > > Let's just keep the lines short and discuss decisions like this > together > well? > > Laters, > > -Ton- > > > Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > > > > On 11 Oct, 2014, at 18:24, Bastien Montagne wrote: > > > I’m not happy at all with both the decision and the way it was taken. > > Fyi, I was the one who spent a fair amount of time some months agon > > setting this up, and I think it has proven to be really really useful > > for all wip projects around. > > > > Further more, I do not see any reason to just cut this out out of the > > blue, there was no urgency at all here. And I do not even really > > understand the root of the issue, imho people who are not able to > make > >> a > > distinction between builds tagged as 'official' and builds tagged as > > 'testbuild' have nothing to do on builder.b.o. > > > > But even though, imho it would have been much nicer to ask to add > some > > way to delete testbuilds from the server, again see no urgency at all > > here that could justify this discontinuation. > > > > Adding back build of all branches will just create much much more > mess, > > we won’t gain anything. Oh, and people that cannot understand what > > 'testbuild' means won’t be able either to distinguish from master and > > branches builds - even less I’d say. > > > > Very disapo
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Hi devs, So, we resurrected testbuild as 'experimental-build', getting rid of the issues that caused last week's shutdown of this tool (i.e. builds publicly available from builder.b.o., and confusing name with testbuilds done during release process). Note this tool implies commit access to our main git repository. Here are the steps to follow to make an experimental build: * Checkout the 'experimental-build' branch, merge master in, squash-apply your code to it, revert last commit, and push to origin (see below[1] for an concrete example); * Go to one of the buildbot's builders' page (e.g. https://builder.blender.org/builders/linux_glibc211_x86_64_scons) - note you'll need to do that for all platforms you want to build on. * Select 'experimental-build' instead of 'master' in the branch dropdown, copy-paste the exact hash of your squashed-commit of your patch into 'revision' field, and force the build. * Go to the experimental 'hidden' sub-folder of https://builder.blender.org/download/ and download your builds from there asap. * DO NOT SHARE ABOVE LINK PUBLICLY! It's your responsibility to distribute your builds (e.g. through graphicall, dropbox, whatever), 'official' blender site should not be involved in this. Note that the next experimental build on the same builder will replace current one, so builder.b.o is not a reliable storage for such builds anyway! Quite obviously, let's try not to abuse the feature! :) Happy Blending, Bastien [1] Typical git commands to make an experimental build: $ git checkout experimental-build $ git merge origin/master $ git merge --squash mywippatch $ git commit $ git revert HEAD $ git push origin $ git checkout master Le 12/10/2014 10:39, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne > wrote: > >> Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) >> >> Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : >>> Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a code in >>> the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. >>> On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" >> wrote: Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in master_unpack.py, something like: diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': sys.exit(1) # extract -directory = 'public_html/download' +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else 'public_html/download/testbuilds' try: zf = z.open(package) public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, >> otherwise. As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them >> anyway. And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good to me. Bastien Le 11/10/2014 20:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > It _had been_ discussed several times at least. Starting from >> discussion in > #lbendercoders between me, Dan, Bastien and even Ton. Then once it was all > set up (and i believe some discussion happened in the ML as well). Once all > the changes to the infrastructure were done it was announced in the ML: > http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2014-July/043948.html In > such a situation it's real weird to have a post-factum "it should have > never been done this way". > > As an addition to the previous suggestion: > - We can as well just put a REAL HUGE BANNER on top of the experimental > builds just to stress once again that they're experimental if it'll be > considered useful to have those builds listed to public. > - We can rename "testbuild" to something like "devbuild" (as > developer-build) or "experimental" to prevent possible confusion with >> the > testbuilds being done as a part of the release build. > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote: >> Hi Bastien, >> >> Sorry, I've asked around and had the impression Sergey added the >> feature >> on builder.blender.org. >> >> The fact that building branches on buildbot is useful is not disputed. >> It's just not acceptable to offer an
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
How to make a build now? After I click on 'Force Build' I land in a page saying: "Authorization Failed. You are not allowed to perform this action." And for the records, in the future it would help to have the outcome of such an important discussion re-sent to the list as an email on its own (instead of a reply in a 11-email long thread) ... I just pushed 'testbuild' back to the servers :( [and deleted it after, but still, the notification commits will be all over everyone's email boxes]. Dalai -- blendernetwork.org/dalai-felinto www.dalaifelinto.com 2014-10-16 8:16 GMT-03:00 Bastien Montagne : > Hi devs, > > So, we resurrected testbuild as 'experimental-build', getting rid of the > issues that caused last week's shutdown of this tool (i.e. builds > publicly available from builder.b.o., and confusing name with testbuilds > done during release process). > > Note this tool implies commit access to our main git repository. > > Here are the steps to follow to make an experimental build: > * Checkout the 'experimental-build' branch, merge master in, > squash-apply your code to it, revert last commit, and push to origin > (see below[1] for an concrete example); > * Go to one of the buildbot's builders' page (e.g. > https://builder.blender.org/builders/linux_glibc211_x86_64_scons) - note > you'll need to do that for all platforms you want to build on. > * Select 'experimental-build' instead of 'master' in the branch > dropdown, copy-paste the exact hash of your squashed-commit of your > patch into 'revision' field, and force the build. > * Go to the experimental 'hidden' sub-folder of > https://builder.blender.org/download/ and download your builds from > there asap. > * DO NOT SHARE ABOVE LINK PUBLICLY! It's your responsibility to > distribute your builds (e.g. through graphicall, dropbox, whatever), > 'official' blender site should not be involved in this. Note that the > next experimental build on the same builder will replace current one, so > builder.b.o is not a reliable storage for such builds anyway! > > Quite obviously, let's try not to abuse the feature! :) > > Happy Blending, > Bastien > > [1] Typical git commands to make an experimental build: > $ git checkout experimental-build > $ git merge origin/master > $ git merge --squash mywippatch > $ git commit > $ git revert HEAD > $ git push origin > $ git checkout master > > > Le 12/10/2014 10:39, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : >> Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? >> >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne >> wrote: >> >>> Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) >>> >>> Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a code in the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" >>> wrote: > Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I > fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. > > In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in > master_unpack.py, something like: > > diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 > --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': > sys.exit(1) > > # extract > -directory = 'public_html/download' > +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else > 'public_html/download/testbuilds' > > try: > zf = z.open(package) > > public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. > > On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the > download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for > users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, >>> otherwise. > As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed > at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them >>> anyway. > And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good > to me. > > Bastien > > Le 11/10/2014 20:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : >> It _had been_ discussed several times at least. Starting from >>> discussion > in >> #lbendercoders between me, Dan, Bastien and even Ton. Then once it was > all >> set up (and i believe some discussion happened in the ML as well). Once > all >> the changes to the infrastructure were done it was announced in the ML: >> http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2014-July/043948.html > In >> such a situation it's real weird to have a post-factum "it should have >> never been done this way". >> >> As an addition to the previous suggestion: >> - We can as well just pu
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
That's not the first time I have these 100+ e-mails from the testbuild branch in my inbox. Can't we do something about this? ... Am 14.11.2014 um 04:47 schrieb Dalai Felinto: > How to make a build now? After I click on 'Force Build' I land in a > page saying: "Authorization Failed. You are not allowed to perform > this action." > > And for the records, in the future it would help to have the outcome > of such an important discussion re-sent to the list as an email on its > own (instead of a reply in a 11-email long thread) ... I just pushed > 'testbuild' back to the servers :( [and deleted it after, but > still, the notification commits will be all over everyone's email > boxes]. > > Dalai > -- > blendernetwork.org/dalai-felinto > www.dalaifelinto.com > > > 2014-10-16 8:16 GMT-03:00 Bastien Montagne : >> Hi devs, >> >> So, we resurrected testbuild as 'experimental-build', getting rid of the >> issues that caused last week's shutdown of this tool (i.e. builds >> publicly available from builder.b.o., and confusing name with testbuilds >> done during release process). >> >> Note this tool implies commit access to our main git repository. >> >> Here are the steps to follow to make an experimental build: >> * Checkout the 'experimental-build' branch, merge master in, >> squash-apply your code to it, revert last commit, and push to origin >> (see below[1] for an concrete example); >> * Go to one of the buildbot's builders' page (e.g. >> https://builder.blender.org/builders/linux_glibc211_x86_64_scons) - note >> you'll need to do that for all platforms you want to build on. >> * Select 'experimental-build' instead of 'master' in the branch >> dropdown, copy-paste the exact hash of your squashed-commit of your >> patch into 'revision' field, and force the build. >> * Go to the experimental 'hidden' sub-folder of >> https://builder.blender.org/download/ and download your builds from >> there asap. >> * DO NOT SHARE ABOVE LINK PUBLICLY! It's your responsibility to >> distribute your builds (e.g. through graphicall, dropbox, whatever), >> 'official' blender site should not be involved in this. Note that the >> next experimental build on the same builder will replace current one, so >> builder.b.o is not a reliable storage for such builds anyway! >> >> Quite obviously, let's try not to abuse the feature! :) >> >> Happy Blending, >> Bastien >> >> [1] Typical git commands to make an experimental build: >> $ git checkout experimental-build >> $ git merge origin/master >> $ git merge --squash mywippatch >> $ git commit >> $ git revert HEAD >> $ git push origin >> $ git checkout master >> >> >> Le 12/10/2014 10:39, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : >>> Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne >>> wrote: >>> Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a code in > the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. > On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" wrote: >> Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I >> fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. >> >> In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in >> master_unpack.py, something like: >> >> diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 >> --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': >> sys.exit(1) >> >> # extract >> -directory = 'public_html/download' >> +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else >> 'public_html/download/testbuilds' >> >> try: >> zf = z.open(package) >> >> public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. >> >> On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the >> download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for >> users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, otherwise. >> As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed >> at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them anyway. >> And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good >> to me. >> >> Bastien >> >> Le 11/10/2014 20:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : >>> It _had been_ discussed several times at least. Starting from discussion >> in >>> #lbendercoders between me, Dan, Bastien and even Ton. Then once it was >> all >>> set up (and i believe some discussion happened in the ML as well). Once >> all >>> the changes to the infrastructure were
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Le 14/11/2014 04:47, Dalai Felinto a écrit : > How to make a build now? After I click on 'Force Build' I land in a > page saying: "Authorization Failed. You are not allowed to perform > this action." Then you did not use the right page to start a build, you need to go on each builder’s page (as stated in my previous mail, e.g. https://builder.blender.org/builders/linux_glibc211_x86_64_scons), common one always raises that auth error for some reasons. Has been this way since the beginning. > > And for the records, in the future it would help to have the outcome > of such an important discussion re-sent to the list as an email on its > own (instead of a reply in a 11-email long thread) ... I just pushed > 'testbuild' back to the servers :( [and deleted it after, but > still, the notification commits will be all over everyone's email > boxes]. Well, I would say keeping mails in same thread is better to find info… And seriously, bf-committers is not a high-trafic ML, it’s easy to keep track of what’s going on on it, even remotely, imho… > Dalai > -- > blendernetwork.org/dalai-felinto > www.dalaifelinto.com > > > 2014-10-16 8:16 GMT-03:00 Bastien Montagne : >> Hi devs, >> >> So, we resurrected testbuild as 'experimental-build', getting rid of the >> issues that caused last week's shutdown of this tool (i.e. builds >> publicly available from builder.b.o., and confusing name with testbuilds >> done during release process). >> >> Note this tool implies commit access to our main git repository. >> >> Here are the steps to follow to make an experimental build: >> * Checkout the 'experimental-build' branch, merge master in, >> squash-apply your code to it, revert last commit, and push to origin >> (see below[1] for an concrete example); >> * Go to one of the buildbot's builders' page (e.g. >> https://builder.blender.org/builders/linux_glibc211_x86_64_scons) - note >> you'll need to do that for all platforms you want to build on. >> * Select 'experimental-build' instead of 'master' in the branch >> dropdown, copy-paste the exact hash of your squashed-commit of your >> patch into 'revision' field, and force the build. >> * Go to the experimental 'hidden' sub-folder of >> https://builder.blender.org/download/ and download your builds from >> there asap. >> * DO NOT SHARE ABOVE LINK PUBLICLY! It's your responsibility to >> distribute your builds (e.g. through graphicall, dropbox, whatever), >> 'official' blender site should not be involved in this. Note that the >> next experimental build on the same builder will replace current one, so >> builder.b.o is not a reliable storage for such builds anyway! >> >> Quite obviously, let's try not to abuse the feature! :) >> >> Happy Blending, >> Bastien >> >> [1] Typical git commands to make an experimental build: >> $ git checkout experimental-build >> $ git merge origin/master >> $ git merge --squash mywippatch >> $ git commit >> $ git revert HEAD >> $ git push origin >> $ git checkout master >> >> >> Le 12/10/2014 10:39, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : >>> Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne >>> wrote: >>> Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a code in > the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. > On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" wrote: >> Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I >> fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. >> >> In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in >> master_unpack.py, something like: >> >> diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 >> --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': >> sys.exit(1) >> >> # extract >> -directory = 'public_html/download' >> +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else >> 'public_html/download/testbuilds' >> >> try: >> zf = z.open(package) >> >> public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. >> >> On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the >> download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for >> users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, otherwise. >> As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed >> at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them anyway. >> And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good >> to me. >> >> Bastien >> >> Le 11/
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Don’t think so - and testbuild (now experimental-build) is not the only one, this can happen (and already have happened) in any branch if you mess a merge or whatever (even happens when backporting fixes into release branches…). Le 14/11/2014 08:00, Thomas Dinges a écrit : > That's not the first time I have these 100+ e-mails from the testbuild > branch in my inbox. Can't we do something about this? ... > > Am 14.11.2014 um 04:47 schrieb Dalai Felinto: >> How to make a build now? After I click on 'Force Build' I land in a >> page saying: "Authorization Failed. You are not allowed to perform >> this action." >> >> And for the records, in the future it would help to have the outcome >> of such an important discussion re-sent to the list as an email on its >> own (instead of a reply in a 11-email long thread) ... I just pushed >> 'testbuild' back to the servers :( [and deleted it after, but >> still, the notification commits will be all over everyone's email >> boxes]. >> >> Dalai >> -- >> blendernetwork.org/dalai-felinto >> www.dalaifelinto.com >> >> >> 2014-10-16 8:16 GMT-03:00 Bastien Montagne : >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> So, we resurrected testbuild as 'experimental-build', getting rid of the >>> issues that caused last week's shutdown of this tool (i.e. builds >>> publicly available from builder.b.o., and confusing name with testbuilds >>> done during release process). >>> >>> Note this tool implies commit access to our main git repository. >>> >>> Here are the steps to follow to make an experimental build: >>> * Checkout the 'experimental-build' branch, merge master in, >>> squash-apply your code to it, revert last commit, and push to origin >>> (see below[1] for an concrete example); >>> * Go to one of the buildbot's builders' page (e.g. >>> https://builder.blender.org/builders/linux_glibc211_x86_64_scons) - note >>> you'll need to do that for all platforms you want to build on. >>> * Select 'experimental-build' instead of 'master' in the branch >>> dropdown, copy-paste the exact hash of your squashed-commit of your >>> patch into 'revision' field, and force the build. >>> * Go to the experimental 'hidden' sub-folder of >>> https://builder.blender.org/download/ and download your builds from >>> there asap. >>> * DO NOT SHARE ABOVE LINK PUBLICLY! It's your responsibility to >>> distribute your builds (e.g. through graphicall, dropbox, whatever), >>> 'official' blender site should not be involved in this. Note that the >>> next experimental build on the same builder will replace current one, so >>> builder.b.o is not a reliable storage for such builds anyway! >>> >>> Quite obviously, let's try not to abuse the feature! :) >>> >>> Happy Blending, >>> Bastien >>> >>> [1] Typical git commands to make an experimental build: >>>$ git checkout experimental-build >>>$ git merge origin/master >>>$ git merge --squash mywippatch >>>$ git commit >>>$ git revert HEAD >>>$ git push origin >>>$ git checkout master >>> >>> >>> Le 12/10/2014 10:39, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne wrote: > Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) > > Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : >> Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a code in >> the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. >> On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" > wrote: >>> Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I >>> fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running again. >>> >>> In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in >>> master_unpack.py, something like: >>> >>> diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >>> b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >>> index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 >>> --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >>> +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >>> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': >>> sys.exit(1) >>> >>> # extract >>> -directory = 'public_html/download' >>> +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch == 'master' else >>> 'public_html/download/testbuilds' >>> >>> try: >>> zf = z.open(package) >>> >>> public_html/download/testbuilds must be created beforehand of course. >>> >>> On my local web buildbot UI, that dir is automatically listed under the >>> download page… Not sure whether we consider that as safe enough for >>> users not to mess with it? Guess we can find a way to hide it, > otherwise. >>> As a side note, do not think listing those builds publically is needed >>> at all, they are replaced by next one so dev has to 'backup' them > anyway. >>> And yes, probably renaming could be nice too… 'experimental' sounds good >>> to me. >
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
For me it seems this happens because Dalai didn't follow the updates in the ML and pushed testbuild branch again/ Which for sure created new branch and pushed all the commits. So in this particular case proper solution would be if the developers follow the ML, imo. I can also forbid creating new branches but afraid it'll cause more troubles. And one more thing to be watched -- do not `git pull --rebase` after the merge commit. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Bastien Montagne wrote: > Don’t think so - and testbuild (now experimental-build) is not the only > one, this can happen (and already have happened) in any branch if you > mess a merge or whatever (even happens when backporting fixes into > release branches…). > Le 14/11/2014 08:00, Thomas Dinges a écrit : > > That's not the first time I have these 100+ e-mails from the testbuild > > branch in my inbox. Can't we do something about this? ... > > > > Am 14.11.2014 um 04:47 schrieb Dalai Felinto: > >> How to make a build now? After I click on 'Force Build' I land in a > >> page saying: "Authorization Failed. You are not allowed to perform > >> this action." > >> > >> And for the records, in the future it would help to have the outcome > >> of such an important discussion re-sent to the list as an email on its > >> own (instead of a reply in a 11-email long thread) ... I just pushed > >> 'testbuild' back to the servers :( [and deleted it after, but > >> still, the notification commits will be all over everyone's email > >> boxes]. > >> > >> Dalai > >> -- > >> blendernetwork.org/dalai-felinto > >> www.dalaifelinto.com > >> > >> > >> 2014-10-16 8:16 GMT-03:00 Bastien Montagne : > >>> Hi devs, > >>> > >>> So, we resurrected testbuild as 'experimental-build', getting rid of > the > >>> issues that caused last week's shutdown of this tool (i.e. builds > >>> publicly available from builder.b.o., and confusing name with > testbuilds > >>> done during release process). > >>> > >>> Note this tool implies commit access to our main git repository. > >>> > >>> Here are the steps to follow to make an experimental build: > >>> * Checkout the 'experimental-build' branch, merge master in, > >>> squash-apply your code to it, revert last commit, and push to origin > >>> (see below[1] for an concrete example); > >>> * Go to one of the buildbot's builders' page (e.g. > >>> https://builder.blender.org/builders/linux_glibc211_x86_64_scons) - > note > >>> you'll need to do that for all platforms you want to build on. > >>> * Select 'experimental-build' instead of 'master' in the branch > >>> dropdown, copy-paste the exact hash of your squashed-commit of your > >>> patch into 'revision' field, and force the build. > >>> * Go to the experimental 'hidden' sub-folder of > >>> https://builder.blender.org/download/ and download your builds from > >>> there asap. > >>> * DO NOT SHARE ABOVE LINK PUBLICLY! It's your responsibility to > >>> distribute your builds (e.g. through graphicall, dropbox, whatever), > >>> 'official' blender site should not be involved in this. Note that the > >>> next experimental build on the same builder will replace current one, > so > >>> builder.b.o is not a reliable storage for such builds anyway! > >>> > >>> Quite obviously, let's try not to abuse the feature! :) > >>> > >>> Happy Blending, > >>> Bastien > >>> > >>> [1] Typical git commands to make an experimental build: > >>>$ git checkout experimental-build > >>>$ git merge origin/master > >>>$ git merge --squash mywippatch > >>>$ git commit > >>>$ git revert HEAD > >>>$ git push origin > >>>$ git checkout master > >>> > >>> > >>> Le 12/10/2014 10:39, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne < > montagn...@wanadoo.fr> > wrote: > > > Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) > > > > Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > >> Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a > code in > >> the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. > >> On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" > > > wrote: > >>> Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I > >>> fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running > again. > >>> > >>> In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in > >>> master_unpack.py, something like: > >>> > >>> diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >>> b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >>> index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 > >>> --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >>> +++ b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > >>> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ if platform == '': > >>> sys.exit(1) > >>> > >>> # extract > >>> -directory = 'public_html/download' > >>> +directory = 'public_html/download' if branch =
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
Also, maybe we should add in git tips (http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/Tools/Git) a line about `git fetch -p`, which allows to remove locally branches that where deleted on the server? Le 14/11/2014 10:04, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > For me it seems this happens because Dalai didn't follow the updates in the > ML and pushed testbuild branch again/ Which for sure created new branch and > pushed all the commits. So in this particular case proper solution would be > if the developers follow the ML, imo. > > I can also forbid creating new branches but afraid it'll cause more > troubles. And one more thing to be watched -- do not `git pull --rebase` > after the merge commit. > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Bastien Montagne > wrote: > >> Don’t think so - and testbuild (now experimental-build) is not the only >> one, this can happen (and already have happened) in any branch if you >> mess a merge or whatever (even happens when backporting fixes into >> release branches…). >> Le 14/11/2014 08:00, Thomas Dinges a écrit : >>> That's not the first time I have these 100+ e-mails from the testbuild >>> branch in my inbox. Can't we do something about this? ... >>> >>> Am 14.11.2014 um 04:47 schrieb Dalai Felinto: How to make a build now? After I click on 'Force Build' I land in a page saying: "Authorization Failed. You are not allowed to perform this action." And for the records, in the future it would help to have the outcome of such an important discussion re-sent to the list as an email on its own (instead of a reply in a 11-email long thread) ... I just pushed 'testbuild' back to the servers :( [and deleted it after, but still, the notification commits will be all over everyone's email boxes]. Dalai -- blendernetwork.org/dalai-felinto www.dalaifelinto.com 2014-10-16 8:16 GMT-03:00 Bastien Montagne : > Hi devs, > > So, we resurrected testbuild as 'experimental-build', getting rid of >> the > issues that caused last week's shutdown of this tool (i.e. builds > publicly available from builder.b.o., and confusing name with >> testbuilds > done during release process). > > Note this tool implies commit access to our main git repository. > > Here are the steps to follow to make an experimental build: > * Checkout the 'experimental-build' branch, merge master in, > squash-apply your code to it, revert last commit, and push to origin > (see below[1] for an concrete example); > * Go to one of the buildbot's builders' page (e.g. > https://builder.blender.org/builders/linux_glibc211_x86_64_scons) - >> note > you'll need to do that for all platforms you want to build on. > * Select 'experimental-build' instead of 'master' in the branch > dropdown, copy-paste the exact hash of your squashed-commit of your > patch into 'revision' field, and force the build. > * Go to the experimental 'hidden' sub-folder of > https://builder.blender.org/download/ and download your builds from > there asap. > * DO NOT SHARE ABOVE LINK PUBLICLY! It's your responsibility to > distribute your builds (e.g. through graphicall, dropbox, whatever), > 'official' blender site should not be involved in this. Note that the > next experimental build on the same builder will replace current one, >> so > builder.b.o is not a reliable storage for such builds anyway! > > Quite obviously, let's try not to abuse the feature! :) > > Happy Blending, > Bastien > > [1] Typical git commands to make an experimental build: > $ git checkout experimental-build > $ git merge origin/master > $ git merge --squash mywippatch > $ git commit > $ git revert HEAD > $ git push origin > $ git checkout master > > > Le 12/10/2014 10:39, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : >> Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? >> >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne < >> montagn...@wanadoo.fr> >> wrote: >> >>> Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) >>> >>> Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a >> code in the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" >> wrote: > Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir) I > fought a bit with my local version of buildbot to get it running >> again. > In the end, looks like a very simple change is enough, in > master_unpack.py, something like: > > diff --git a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > b/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py > index ecacf3b..f5c8493 100644 > --- a/build_files/buildbot/master_unpack.py >>
Re: [Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch
I wouldn't really advertise this and let developers to manage their local branches. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Bastien Montagne wrote: > Also, maybe we should add in git tips > (http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/Tools/Git) a line about `git > fetch -p`, which allows to remove locally branches that where deleted on > the server? > > Le 14/11/2014 10:04, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > > For me it seems this happens because Dalai didn't follow the updates in > the > > ML and pushed testbuild branch again/ Which for sure created new branch > and > > pushed all the commits. So in this particular case proper solution would > be > > if the developers follow the ML, imo. > > > > I can also forbid creating new branches but afraid it'll cause more > > troubles. And one more thing to be watched -- do not `git pull --rebase` > > after the merge commit. > > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Bastien Montagne < > montagn...@wanadoo.fr> > > wrote: > > > >> Don’t think so - and testbuild (now experimental-build) is not the only > >> one, this can happen (and already have happened) in any branch if you > >> mess a merge or whatever (even happens when backporting fixes into > >> release branches…). > >> Le 14/11/2014 08:00, Thomas Dinges a écrit : > >>> That's not the first time I have these 100+ e-mails from the testbuild > >>> branch in my inbox. Can't we do something about this? ... > >>> > >>> Am 14.11.2014 um 04:47 schrieb Dalai Felinto: > How to make a build now? After I click on 'Force Build' I land in a > page saying: "Authorization Failed. You are not allowed to perform > this action." > > And for the records, in the future it would help to have the outcome > of such an important discussion re-sent to the list as an email on its > own (instead of a reply in a 11-email long thread) ... I just pushed > 'testbuild' back to the servers :( [and deleted it after, but > still, the notification commits will be all over everyone's email > boxes]. > > Dalai > -- > blendernetwork.org/dalai-felinto > www.dalaifelinto.com > > > 2014-10-16 8:16 GMT-03:00 Bastien Montagne : > > Hi devs, > > > > So, we resurrected testbuild as 'experimental-build', getting rid of > >> the > > issues that caused last week's shutdown of this tool (i.e. builds > > publicly available from builder.b.o., and confusing name with > >> testbuilds > > done during release process). > > > > Note this tool implies commit access to our main git repository. > > > > Here are the steps to follow to make an experimental build: > > * Checkout the 'experimental-build' branch, merge master in, > > squash-apply your code to it, revert last commit, and push to origin > > (see below[1] for an concrete example); > > * Go to one of the buildbot's builders' page (e.g. > > https://builder.blender.org/builders/linux_glibc211_x86_64_scons) - > >> note > > you'll need to do that for all platforms you want to build on. > > * Select 'experimental-build' instead of 'master' in the branch > > dropdown, copy-paste the exact hash of your squashed-commit of your > > patch into 'revision' field, and force the build. > > * Go to the experimental 'hidden' sub-folder of > > https://builder.blender.org/download/ and download your builds from > > there asap. > > * DO NOT SHARE ABOVE LINK PUBLICLY! It's your responsibility to > > distribute your builds (e.g. through graphicall, dropbox, whatever), > > 'official' blender site should not be involved in this. Note that the > > next experimental build on the same builder will replace current one, > >> so > > builder.b.o is not a reliable storage for such builds anyway! > > > > Quite obviously, let's try not to abuse the feature! :) > > > > Happy Blending, > > Bastien > > > > [1] Typical git commands to make an experimental build: > > $ git checkout experimental-build > > $ git merge origin/master > > $ git merge --squash mywippatch > > $ git commit > > $ git revert HEAD > > $ git push origin > > $ git checkout master > > > > > > Le 12/10/2014 10:39, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > >> Think we should agree on some better name then and deploy? > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Bastien Montagne < > >> montagn...@wanadoo.fr> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Good catch, this seems to work fine! :) > >>> > >>> Le 12/10/2014 08:26, Sergey Sharybin a écrit : > Did you try using public_html/testbuilds instead? There's also a > >> code in > the template which lusts the dirs, could comment that out. > On Oct 11, 2014 11:27 PM, "Bastien Montagne" < > montagn...@wanadoo.fr > >>> wrote: > > Following Sergey's suggestion (put testbuilds in a separate dir)
