Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Build testing, wine style
On 13/01/14 18:47, Tom Stellard wrote: On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 03:53:58PM +, Emil Velikov wrote: Hello list, While going though mesa's build systems I was wondering what it would take to improve the overall experience of build testing. The only thing I can think of is a more centralised solution similar to the one used by wine [1]. Having buildbots test every patch what is send to the ML [2] :) I'm sure that some companies/organisations may have similar infrastructure but I was thinking what is the possibility of having a more open/shared experience, thus one does not need to test the same environment/setup across multiple bots. Here are a couple of nice words for each build system that mesa has: * automake - tons of many build variations, most of which handled by debian/ubuntu, fedora and suse build systems. * scons - less build variations, mainly used for non-public state-trackers and/or drivers * android - possibly the most painful one out there (IMHO), 10GiB code cloned a ton of libraries build and alot more that fair rather randomly :\ Kind of wondering what it would take to have such a feature and if people will see benefits from it. Hi Emil, I've been playing around with buildbot, and I even had a local one doing Mesa builds a few weeks ago. I just need to find a dedicated machine so I can have it running full-time. For me, I'm mostly interested in using buildbot for piglit testing, but I think it would also be useful to catch build breakages for the various configurations people care about. Indeed piglit testing would be great as well, considering it does not lockup the machine :\ My idea was get it compiling first and then piglit test it, as the former can be done virtually any type of machine unlike the latter. I still don't understand the whole master/slave relationship of buildbot, so I'm not sure what kind of centralized resources would be needed, but maybe if someone would volunteer to maintain it we could use some of the fdo resources for hosting buildbot. You also may want to take a look at tinderbox.x.org, which already does some build testing. I prefer buildbot mainly because I was unable to find very much documentation for tinderbox, but it might be worth looking at. To be honest I did not find much documentation about tinderbox either. What I've noticed is that openSUSE Build Service offers a drop the distro specific build script here approach while handling all major distributions. Scons and Android builds are still a bit of a mist though. Thanks for the input Tom, I'll need to take a look at tinderbox/buildbot/obs more closely. Emil -Tom Cheers, Emil [1] http://wiki.winehq.org/BuildBot [2] http://source.winehq.org/patches/ ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Build testing, wine style
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: On 13/01/14 18:47, Tom Stellard wrote: On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 03:53:58PM +, Emil Velikov wrote: Hello list, While going though mesa's build systems I was wondering what it would take to improve the overall experience of build testing. The only thing I can think of is a more centralised solution similar to the one used by wine [1]. Having buildbots test every patch what is send to the ML [2] :) I'm sure that some companies/organisations may have similar infrastructure but I was thinking what is the possibility of having a more open/shared experience, thus one does not need to test the same environment/setup across multiple bots. Here are a couple of nice words for each build system that mesa has: * automake - tons of many build variations, most of which handled by debian/ubuntu, fedora and suse build systems. * scons - less build variations, mainly used for non-public state-trackers and/or drivers * android - possibly the most painful one out there (IMHO), 10GiB code cloned a ton of libraries build and alot more that fair rather randomly :\ Kind of wondering what it would take to have such a feature and if people will see benefits from it. Hi Emil, I've been playing around with buildbot, and I even had a local one doing Mesa builds a few weeks ago. I just need to find a dedicated machine so I can have it running full-time. For me, I'm mostly interested in using buildbot for piglit testing, but I think it would also be useful to catch build breakages for the various configurations people care about. Indeed piglit testing would be great as well, considering it does not lockup the machine :\ My idea was get it compiling first and then piglit test it, as the former can be done virtually any type of machine unlike the latter. I still don't understand the whole master/slave relationship of buildbot, so I'm not sure what kind of centralized resources would be needed, but maybe if someone would volunteer to maintain it we could use some of the fdo resources for hosting buildbot. You also may want to take a look at tinderbox.x.org, which already does some build testing. I prefer buildbot mainly because I was unable to find very much documentation for tinderbox, but it might be worth looking at. To be honest I did not find much documentation about tinderbox either. What I've noticed is that openSUSE Build Service offers a drop the distro specific build script here approach while handling all major distributions. Scons and Android builds are still a bit of a mist though. Thanks for the input Tom, I'll need to take a look at tinderbox/buildbot/obs more closely. mesa master gets built in the X.org tinderbox as well, Dave. ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Build testing, wine style
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 03:53:58PM +, Emil Velikov wrote: Hello list, While going though mesa's build systems I was wondering what it would take to improve the overall experience of build testing. The only thing I can think of is a more centralised solution similar to the one used by wine [1]. Having buildbots test every patch what is send to the ML [2] :) I'm sure that some companies/organisations may have similar infrastructure but I was thinking what is the possibility of having a more open/shared experience, thus one does not need to test the same environment/setup across multiple bots. Here are a couple of nice words for each build system that mesa has: * automake - tons of many build variations, most of which handled by debian/ubuntu, fedora and suse build systems. * scons - less build variations, mainly used for non-public state-trackers and/or drivers * android - possibly the most painful one out there (IMHO), 10GiB code cloned a ton of libraries build and alot more that fair rather randomly :\ Kind of wondering what it would take to have such a feature and if people will see benefits from it. Hi Emil, I've been playing around with buildbot, and I even had a local one doing Mesa builds a few weeks ago. I just need to find a dedicated machine so I can have it running full-time. For me, I'm mostly interested in using buildbot for piglit testing, but I think it would also be useful to catch build breakages for the various configurations people care about. I still don't understand the whole master/slave relationship of buildbot, so I'm not sure what kind of centralized resources would be needed, but maybe if someone would volunteer to maintain it we could use some of the fdo resources for hosting buildbot. You also may want to take a look at tinderbox.x.org, which already does some build testing. I prefer buildbot mainly because I was unable to find very much documentation for tinderbox, but it might be worth looking at. -Tom Cheers, Emil [1] http://wiki.winehq.org/BuildBot [2] http://source.winehq.org/patches/ ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
[Mesa-dev] [RFC] Build testing, wine style
Hello list, While going though mesa's build systems I was wondering what it would take to improve the overall experience of build testing. The only thing I can think of is a more centralised solution similar to the one used by wine [1]. Having buildbots test every patch what is send to the ML [2] :) I'm sure that some companies/organisations may have similar infrastructure but I was thinking what is the possibility of having a more open/shared experience, thus one does not need to test the same environment/setup across multiple bots. Here are a couple of nice words for each build system that mesa has: * automake - tons of many build variations, most of which handled by debian/ubuntu, fedora and suse build systems. * scons - less build variations, mainly used for non-public state-trackers and/or drivers * android - possibly the most painful one out there (IMHO), 10GiB code cloned a ton of libraries build and alot more that fair rather randomly :\ Kind of wondering what it would take to have such a feature and if people will see benefits from it. Cheers, Emil [1] http://wiki.winehq.org/BuildBot [2] http://source.winehq.org/patches/ ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
