[Bf-committers] Revising the testbuild branch

Bastien Montagne montagne29 at wanadoo.fr
Sun Oct 12 09:19:40 CEST 2014


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



More information about the Bf-committers mailing list