[Bf-committers] Official Automated Builds
jonathan d p ferguson
jdpf.plus at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 02:36:45 CET 2011
I'm very pleased to see a step in this direction. I did automated builds of blender for a while at my former job. Without a continuous integration framework, however, the automated builds were not as useful as I (and a few others) had imagined. Graphicall has been providing a good way for various developers to upload builds (of various quality) for end users to play with. (Thanks Daniel!)
To offer my $0.25 opinion, I'd focus on the Continuous Integration aspect, and have build-automation for the sake of end-user downloads stay in the background. Interested users can search for the CI page, but the build products, themselves, should probably not be listed on the Download page, per se.
I suggest that the interested developers look into what's available. I've seen Jenkins nee Hudson put to good use (tied into Git, actually), as the Hudson community is very active, and plugins exist to support SCons and CMake. See: http://jenkins-ci.org/
I also point out CDash, which is integrated with CMake: http://www.cdash.org/
I remind you that Mozilla's Tinderbox depends on Bonsai, and moreover, both look to be no longer supported by mozilla/community? It is no longer listed here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/#tools and https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Tinderbox is only for mozilla products. There is a fork for Tinderbox code: http://tinderbox.marcuscom.com/ focused on use for FreeBSD ports. If you know more, then please share (with Wikipedia.)
I thought I'd share what I knew.
Thanks for all the awesome that is Blender!
have a day.yad
On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Ρυακιωτάκης Αντώνης wrote:
> If that does happen you should expect A LOT more traffic since people will
> often download the latest version. Seeing, however how often compatibility
> changed between recent releases I think that most professionals will stick
> to 'official' releases.
> +1 on the automated notifier for broken builds. Possible drawback is that if
> not all possible build systems are equally supported, it will be easy to
> miss a broken build for a specific configuration. Eventually this could lead
> to 'preferred' build system with more support, which might not stick well
> with some developers. For example on Windows I use MinGW for building while
> official releases use VS. Personally I'm sort of fine with it, realizing how
> much work is needed to maintain both systems. I'd still like to use gcc
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers