[opensuse-buildservice] Public availability of ci.opensuse.org
The development process of the Open Build Service (OBS) code base as well as it's accompanying tools is largely test-driven. Major parts of the OBS source code are covered by a comprehensive test-suite. Traditionally, after each new code submission, these tests have been run by a custom shell-script on a local machine that wasn't publically available for several reasons. Even though this setup served us well for a long time, but we needed more. We want to provide a more transparent solution that allows the community to participate and maybe take over some responsibilities. Thus, your hard-working OBS-team hereby kindly introduces http://ci.opensuse.org, our new public interface for continuous integration (CI) testing! Currently, we run the testsuites of the OBS, osc and osc2 code-bases and publish their results to a newly created mailinglist, obs-tests@opensuse.org. Additionally, reports about the code coverage and quality (amounts of TODOS, FIXMEs, etc.) are generated. Behind the scenes, we are using Jenkins, probably the most prominet open source CI tool available. Currently, the OBS and osc/osc2 code bases are tested, but we would like to see more openSUSE projects utilize ci.opensuse.org. In the future, we also want to test the RPMs (and appliances) for new OBS releases. And of course, we want to invite the community to have a close look at those test results and provide us with valuable input (or even patches). In case you want to work on the currently available test runners, they are part of the OBS code base and found under $OBS_ROOT/dist/ci (http://github.com/openSUSE/open- build-service/tree/master/dist/ci). -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Sascha Peilicke
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:12:23PM -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote: [ 8< ]
Currently, we run the testsuites of the OBS, osc and osc2 code-bases and publish their results to a newly created mailinglist, obs-tests@opensuse.org. Additionally, reports about the code coverage and quality (amounts of TODOS, FIXMEs, etc.) are generated.
Why does this require a new list? We already run how many lists for openSUSE? More than 80. Terrible and horrible. The amount of lists a project provides isn't an indicator for the quality and importance. Less so often is more. Therefore I suggest - and I suggested this already in the past - only to create a new list if there is real demand. Look at Samba. There we drive all discussion on two lists since many years. Sascha in cc as he'll else will complain that he's not reading list mails. ;) Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
On Tuesday, October 18, 2011 09:07:44 AM Lars Müller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:12:23PM -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote: [ 8< ]
Currently, we run the testsuites of the OBS, osc and osc2 code-bases and publish their results to a newly created mailinglist, obs-tests@opensuse.org. Additionally, reports about the code coverage and quality (amounts of TODOS, FIXMEs, etc.) are generated.
Why does this require a new list?
We already run how many lists for openSUSE? More than 80. Terrible and horrible. The amount of lists a project provides isn't an indicator for the quality and importance. Less so often is more.
Therefore I suggest - and I suggested this already in the past - only to create a new list if there is real demand.
Look at Samba. There we drive all discussion on two lists since many years.
Sascha in cc as he'll else will complain that he's not reading list mails. ;)
Lars My god, 80 lists? That is far too many. We really need a new paradigm for organizing ourselves. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:12:23PM -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
Currently, we run the testsuites of the OBS, osc and osc2 code-bases and publish their results to a newly created mailinglist, obs-tests@opensuse.org. Additionally, reports about the code coverage and quality (amounts of TODOS, FIXMEs, etc.) are generated.
Why does this require a new list?
We already run how many lists for openSUSE? More than 80. Terrible and horrible. The amount of lists a project provides isn't an indicator for the quality and importance. Less so often is more. Otherwise people will complain that they're spammed with test result mails. Thrust me, this wasn't a one man decision. In fact, I was more for sending test results to this list, but people would have complained about that too. If something relevant happens, there's always some idiot savant jumping out of
On Tuesday 18 October 2011 18:07:44 you wrote: the bushes (or cellar) telling us "Ha! Me being so bright 'n told 'ya so all the times!".
Therefore I suggest - and I suggested this already in the past - only to create a new list if there is real demand. Heck, we may even want to close unused lists. But geez, we would have to come up with a list of candidates first!
Look at Samba. There we drive all discussion on two lists since many years. I'd say, up until now, OBS was even a brighter star on that firmament, we used only one list, even for the tools developed by our pals and team meeting results. How truly awesome is that! Now we're on par. You'll be shocked when we announce even another list, where we will send commit messages too. I'm sure there's plenty of people who would have loved to see them on this list too
Sascha in cc as he'll else will complain that he's not reading list mails. Hell yes, barely made a point, now it's flaming time! How kind of you, but as me beiing subscribed to this very list, your sweet-talk is entirely superfluous. -- Viele Grüße, Sascha
On 10/18/2011 07:53 PM, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
On Tuesday 18 October 2011 18:07:44 you wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:12:23PM -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
Currently, we run the testsuites of the OBS, osc and osc2 code-bases and publish their results to a newly created mailinglist, obs-tests@opensuse.org. Additionally, reports about the code coverage and quality (amounts of TODOS, FIXMEs, etc.) are generated.
Why does this require a new list?
We already run how many lists for openSUSE? More than 80. Terrible and horrible. The amount of lists a project provides isn't an indicator for the quality and importance. Less so often is more. Otherwise people will complain that they're spammed with test result mails. Thrust me, this wasn't a one man decision. In fact, I was more for sending test results to this list, but people would have complained about that too. If something relevant happens, there's always some idiot savant jumping out of the bushes (or cellar) telling us "Ha! Me being so bright 'n told 'ya so all the times!".
Therefore I suggest - and I suggested this already in the past - only to create a new list if there is real demand. Heck, we may even want to close unused lists. But geez, we would have to come up with a list of candidates first!
Look at Samba. There we drive all discussion on two lists since many years. I'd say, up until now, OBS was even a brighter star on that firmament, we used only one list, even for the tools developed by our pals and team meeting results. How truly awesome is that! Now we're on par. You'll be shocked when we announce even another list, where we will send commit messages too. I'm sure there's plenty of people who would have loved to see them on this list too
Sascha in cc as he'll else will complain that he's not reading list mails. Hell yes, barely made a point, now it's flaming time! How kind of you, but as me beiing subscribed to this very list, your sweet-talk is entirely superfluous.
As I use Jenkins at work, a separate mail list for this is entirely sensible. Jenkins sends lots of mails for all kinds of activities. Definitely traffic to keep off this list. Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 17:12 -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote: We use Hudson for CI locally. Interesting to see that you use Jenkins. Perhaps this is not for discussion here, but what is the difference between the two? How can one see the test implementations themselves? I confess this is to see if we can get any hints to improve our test implementation methodology. But we do check some checks in our openSUSE installations and could be interested in seeing if these tests could be useful here. Not sure. Yours sincerely, Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems / Ramböll RST Office: Int +46 10-615 60 20 Mobile: Int +46 70-815 1696 roger.oberholtzer@ramboll.se ________________________________________ Ramböll Sverige AB Krukmakargatan 21 P.O. Box 17009 SE-104 62 Stockholm, Sweden www.rambollrst.se -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 10:38:30 Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 17:12 -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
We use Hudson for CI locally. Interesting to see that you use Jenkins. Perhaps this is not for discussion here, but what is the difference between the two? http://www.google.com/search?q=hudson+versus+jenkins
How can one see the test implementations themselves? I confess this is to see if we can get any hints to improve our test implementation methodology. But we do check some checks in our openSUSE installations and could be interested in seeing if these tests could be useful here. Not sure. Sure, as said, the OBS test runner scripts are under source control in the OBS Github repo ($GIT_ROOT/dist/ci), the settings inside Jenkins are documented
:-) there too. The test runners for osc/osc2 aren't yet versioned, but I'll change that soon. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Sascha Peilicke
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 10:58 -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 10:38:30 Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 17:12 -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
We use Hudson for CI locally. Interesting to see that you use Jenkins. Perhaps this is not for discussion here, but what is the difference between the two? http://www.google.com/search?q=hudson+versus+jenkins
Thanks for that. But few of them really say anything useful. Mainly that Hudson is losing share. OK. But do any of these describe any technical reason for this? All I see is the results of a popularity contest. Of course, if all the Hudson developers move to Jenkins, that is compelling reason to follow. It remains unclear to me just why they are jumping ship. Yours sincerely, Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems / Ramböll RST Office: Int +46 10-615 60 20 Mobile: Int +46 70-815 1696 roger.oberholtzer@ramboll.se ________________________________________ Ramböll Sverige AB Krukmakargatan 21 P.O. Box 17009 SE-104 62 Stockholm, Sweden www.rambollrst.se -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 10/24/11 06:20 PM, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 10:58 -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 10:38:30 Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 17:12 -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
We use Hudson for CI locally. Interesting to see that you use Jenkins. Perhaps this is not for discussion here, but what is the difference between the two? http://www.google.com/search?q=hudson+versus+jenkins Thanks for that. But few of them really say anything useful. Mainly that Hudson is losing share. OK. But do any of these describe any technical reason for this? All I see is the results of a popularity contest. Of course, if all the Hudson developers move to Jenkins, that is compelling reason to follow. It remains unclear to me just why they are jumping ship. Maybe Atlassian would be willing to give a license for Bamboo? Jenkins/Huson both made my eyes bleed from a UI perspective. Sorry to stir this up or recommend a non-FOSS solution, but I see no reason to use (imho) an inferior tool when a better one may be an option.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 05:20, Roger Oberholtzer <roger@opq.se> wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 10:58 -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 10:38:30 Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 17:12 -0800, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
We use Hudson for CI locally. Interesting to see that you use Jenkins. Perhaps this is not for discussion here, but what is the difference between the two? http://www.google.com/search?q=hudson+versus+jenkins
Thanks for that. But few of them really say anything useful. Mainly that Hudson is losing share. OK. But do any of these describe any technical reason for this? All I see is the results of a popularity contest. Of course, if all the Hudson developers move to Jenkins, that is compelling reason to follow. It remains unclear to me just why they are jumping ship.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Oberholtzer
The reason essentially for both hudson and jenkins is because oracle is really lame. The pissed off the entire core team and a large (most if not just about all) of the community. There is a whole lot of blog posts out there about this. At the end of the day oracle pushed everyone out the door and cased a fork in the project. I can't imagine other than just taking jenkins code into hudson that hudson will necessarily compete/survive with jenkins. Cheers, Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
participants (7)
-
"C. Bergström" -
Lars Müller -
Peter Linnell -
Roger Luedecke -
Roger Oberholtzer -
Sascha Peilicke -
Stephen Shaw