[Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch

Bastien Montagne montagne29 at wanadoo.fr
Thu Oct 16 13:16:19 CEST 2014 

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 <montagne29 at 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" <montagne29 at wanadoo.fr>
>> 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 <ton at blender.org>
>>>> 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  -  ton at 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  -  ton at blender.org   -   www.blender.org
>>>>>>>> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
>>>>>>>> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>>>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>
>

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list