Re: Continuous integration

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:25:28 -0700 John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> wrote: 

JW> There has been some exploration done on GitLab already, I wonder if they have
JW> some data to share with you?

I think everyone is waiting. Besides me, no one else seems to have used
the test GitLab instance. I strongly encourage everyone to look around
the Hydra instance we use today, GitLab, BuildBot, and other CI systems
they may know.

From the responses, here are the criteria for "a helpful CI" as John put it:

Builds:

* build logs and good notifications
* good platform coverage
* clean builds of all branches+commits and reporting on each one's build
* local replicability of build environment via Docker or VM
* store build artifacts (packages, tarballs, etc.)

UI:

* good UI/UX and multiple requests for a Web GUI too
* support special build requests: specific branch, target, test (via web or email)

Software and maintainer/company:

* Free software
* probable long-term support; ie they have a solid business plan
* personal logins to comment on builds or specific code

Nice to have:

* pull request awareness (not necessarily PRs in the CI system itself)
* code review capability

In order to keep the evaluation objective, I'll keep out of the voting.
If you just want to vote, please send your votes to me directly by
e-mail. But please feel free to vote and comment here; just make sure
to make it clear that you're voting so I can keep track.

Thanks
Ted