Re: [Pharo-project] Silly Tweet
Igor wrote:
On 29 June 2011 15:56, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab at anest.ufl.edu wrote:
Having an archive seems sufficient - those who need old versions for use or research can get them; they don't have to be clogging up the build server. Sounds great.
Indeed. If people would like to use older releases, they should look for another place, not for build server. Since build server are there to build & test bleeding-edge (under development) versions, but not ones which already released and years old.
Ok, so you simply do not want the builds to be used by others. That's fine. Stephan Eggermont
On 30 June 2011 00:12, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Igor wrote:
On 29 June 2011 15:56, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab at anest.ufl.edu wrote:
Having an archive seems sufficient - those who need old versions for use or research can get them; they don't have to be clogging up the build server. Â Sounds great.
Indeed. If people would like to use older releases, they should look for another place, not for build server. Since build server are there to build & test bleeding-edge (under development) versions, but not ones which already released and years old.
Ok, so you simply do not want the builds to be used by others.
Its not about that we don't want users to download older versions (they are available for download at pharo official site). No. Builds purpose is to follow a development process: new update -> new build. Now since we're done with 1.2 (and even almost done with 1.3) there will be no new versions for these lines, since all development is now in 1.4. So, there is no reason to keep jobs for 1.2 and then 1.3 on build server, because there will be no activity around it.
That's fine.
Stephan Eggermont
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Does this imply that older versions are not maintained (e.g. with 1.2.n or 1.3.n releases) which include important bug fixes. It seems so and from a practical point of view there is probably no way around it.... --Hannes On 6/29/11, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 June 2011 00:12, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Igor wrote:
On 29 June 2011 15:56, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab at anest.ufl.edu wrote:
Having an archive seems sufficient - those who need old versions for use or research can get them; they don't have to be clogging up the build server. Â Sounds great.
Indeed. If people would like to use older releases, they should look for another place, not for build server. Since build server are there to build & test bleeding-edge (under development) versions, but not ones which already released and years old.
Ok, so you simply do not want the builds to be used by others.
Its not about that we don't want users to download older versions (they are available for download at pharo official site).
No. Builds purpose is to follow a development process: new update -> new build. Now since we're done with 1.2 (and even almost done with 1.3) there will be no new versions for these lines, since all development is now in 1.4. So, there is no reason to keep jobs for 1.2 and then 1.3 on build server, because there will be no activity around it.
That's fine.
Stephan Eggermont
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
There are 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 releases. What I do not know is how, for example, 1.2.1 compares with the 1.2 on the CI server?? Bill ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of H. Hirzel [hannes.hirzel@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:23 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Silly Tweet Does this imply that older versions are not maintained (e.g. with 1.2.n or 1.3.n releases) which include important bug fixes. It seems so and from a practical point of view there is probably no way around it.... --Hannes On 6/29/11, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 June 2011 00:12, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Igor wrote:
On 29 June 2011 15:56, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab at anest.ufl.edu wrote:
Having an archive seems sufficient - those who need old versions for use or research can get them; they don't have to be clogging up the build server. Sounds great.
Indeed. If people would like to use older releases, they should look for another place, not for build server. Since build server are there to build & test bleeding-edge (under development) versions, but not ones which already released and years old.
Ok, so you simply do not want the builds to be used by others.
Its not about that we don't want users to download older versions (they are available for download at pharo official site).
No. Builds purpose is to follow a development process: new update -> new build. Now since we're done with 1.2 (and even almost done with 1.3) there will be no new versions for these lines, since all development is now in 1.4. So, there is no reason to keep jobs for 1.2 and then 1.3 on build server, because there will be no activity around it.
That's fine.
Stephan Eggermont
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
+1 to Sig's answer. Old builds are great, and we should (and do) keep them around, but they do not need to be on the CI server. As Sig said, the old versions don't change, so CI gets pretty boring. The old versions are available from an archive (https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/?group_id=1299). See the "file server" link on the downloads page. ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko [siguctua@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:16 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Silly Tweet On 30 June 2011 00:12, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Igor wrote:
On 29 June 2011 15:56, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab at anest.ufl.edu wrote:
Having an archive seems sufficient - those who need old versions for use or research can get them; they don't have to be clogging up the build server. Sounds great.
Indeed. If people would like to use older releases, they should look for another place, not for build server. Since build server are there to build & test bleeding-edge (under development) versions, but not ones which already released and years old.
Ok, so you simply do not want the builds to be used by others.
Its not about that we don't want users to download older versions (they are available for download at pharo official site). No. Builds purpose is to follow a development process: new update -> new build. Now since we're done with 1.2 (and even almost done with 1.3) there will be no new versions for these lines, since all development is now in 1.4. So, there is no reason to keep jobs for 1.2 and then 1.3 on build server, because there will be no activity around it.
That's fine.
Stephan Eggermont
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On 29/06/11 6:24 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
+1 to Sig's answer. Old builds are great, and we should (and do) keep them around, but they do not need to be on the CI server. As Sig said, the old versions don't change, so CI gets pretty boring.
There is the option to disable the build job, so that no further builds take place (until there are maintenance releases to build). There is also the option to use the CI server as the build archive as well. You can mark some build numbers as "never remove". Normally, only the last N builds are kept, and the oldest is deleted after the new build completes (unless that oldest build is the last successful build, then it's kept until the next successful build). Whichever builds are marked "never remove" would form the archive. That would eliminate the apparent confusion caused by having the archive at https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/?group_id=1299 The other factor is that a transition to Jenkins from Hudson is happening, which is driving the desire to drop the Hudson based 1.2 builds.
On 30 June 2011 03:30, Yanni Chiu <yanni@rogers.com> wrote:
On 29/06/11 6:24 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
+1 to Sig's answer. Â Old builds are great, and we should (and do) keep them around, but they do not need to be on the CI server. Â As Sig said, the old versions don't change, so CI gets pretty boring.
There is the option to disable the build job, so that no further builds take place (until there are maintenance releases to build).
There is also the option to use the CI server as the build archive as well. You can mark some build numbers as "never remove". Normally, only the last N builds are kept, and the oldest is deleted after the new build completes (unless that oldest build is the last successful build, then it's kept until the next successful build). Whichever builds are marked "never remove" would form the archive. That would eliminate the apparent confusion caused by having the archive at https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/?group_id=1299
The other factor is that a transition to Jenkins from Hudson is happening, which is driving the desire to drop the Hudson based 1.2 builds.
Another aspect of it, that build servers has a limited space (Marcus has to cut the number of builds , since they taking too much space). While on gforge we can afford to keep much more. Of course keeping latest 'frozen' build doesn't takes too much , except of a little nuisiance after a couple of years every time you open a jenkins, you will see a very long list of jobs, where only few of them actually needed. That's why i thinking that moving things to archive is preferable. In any way, i think everyone understands that nobody wants to hide existing versions from public eyes. Its only a question of finding appropriate place for them, after development is done. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 June 2011 00:12, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Igor wrote:
On 29 June 2011 15:56, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab at anest.ufl.edu wrote:
Having an archive seems sufficient - those who need old versions for use or research can get them; they don't have to be clogging up the build server. Sounds great.
Indeed. If people would like to use older releases, they should look for another place, not for build server. Since build server are there to build & test bleeding-edge (under development) versions, but not ones which already released and years old.
Ok, so you simply do not want the builds to be used by others.
Its not about that we don't want users to download older versions (they are available for download at pharo official site).
No. Builds purpose is to follow a development process: new update -> new build. Now since we're done with 1.2 (and even almost done with 1.3) there will be no new versions for these lines, since all development is now in 1.4. So, there is no reason to keep jobs for 1.2 and then 1.3 on build server, because there will be no activity around it.
What I understood is that there could be activity and changes not in pharo, but in the other project that is build/tested in Pharo. Say I am still quite developing Fuel, and I am commiting every day. No matter if it is on Pharo 1.2 or 1.3 what I want to say is that there is activity. Ok, the resources let us to that with the latest Pharo, so that we can test both at the same time: pharo itself and the third party. If you want third part with old pharo images, then you should get your own IC server.
That's fine.
Stephan Eggermont
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
Igor wrote:
On 29 June 2011 15:56, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab at anest.ufl.edu wrote:
Having an archive seems sufficient - those who need old versions for use or research can get them; they don't have to be clogging up the build server. Sounds great.
Indeed. If people would like to use older releases, they should look for another place, not for build server. Since build server are there to build & test bleeding-edge (under development) versions, but not ones which already released and years old.
Ok, so you simply do not want the builds to be used by others. That's fine.
why do you say that? What is the point to have a build server build all the time the same same same same same same same image? For the sake of it? Stef
Stephan Eggermont
Why do people still use an older image? Even as older as Pharo1.1 and 1.2. It doesn't take much to update to Pharo1.3 or Pharo1.4, and its totally worth the nuisance of updating a couple of classes references and uses, because of the many many many improvements that get integrated ( thanks for Marcus and Stef for the continuos improvements integration and fixes) Fernando On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
Igor wrote:
On 29 June 2011 15:56, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab at anest.ufl.edu wrote:
Having an archive seems sufficient - those who need old versions for use or research can get them; they don't have to be clogging up the build server. Â Sounds great.
Indeed. If people would like to use older releases, they should look for another place, not for build server. Since build server are there to build & test bleeding-edge (under development) versions, but not ones which already released and years old.
Ok, so you simply do not want the builds to be used by others. That's fine.
why do you say that?
What is the point to have a build server build all the time the same same same same same same same image?
For the sake of it?
Stef
Stephan Eggermont
Now what is a set up that can help you? We could keep 1.0, 1.2, images around without building them systematically. and their dependent projects could still be updated and run from the server. Stef
participants (8)
-
Fernando Olivero -
H. Hirzel -
Igor Stasenko -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Schwab,Wilhelm K -
Stephan Eggermont -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Yanni Chiu