From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: request for votes for continuous integration system Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:36:25 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87tw2bceqe.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> References: <87a88emy62.fsf@luca> <87d1d8ul7q.fsf@russet.org.uk> <22740.454.818489.461885@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com> <87h92jswrk.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83246C10-FB82-4BE0-80F7-A56F9A12951C@gmail.com> <87bmsrc64p.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87o9wq7i23.fsf@lifelogs.com> <85b7f49ba74f899e8e366f32a7772dce.squirrel@cloud103.planethippo.com> <878tnnm6yq.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87pogp1x53.fsf@lifelogs.com> <86tw5xzs1j.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> <86mvbpzchj.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> <87h900q3vk.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87a846hjd7.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1500302238 3381 195.159.176.226 (17 Jul 2017 14:37:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:37:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 17 16:37:14 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dX797-0000f4-Fm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:37:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50788 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dX79D-00083t-4j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:37:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33737) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dX78g-00083h-F3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:36:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dX78b-0004Kn-Ia for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:36:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=42436 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dX78b-0004Jd-BU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:36:41 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dX78O-0006pE-Tb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:36:28 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZE/3xDCnCilVbDsNBfg73L2DJTs= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:216780 Archived-At: Reposting as suggested by Dmitry Gutov. 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. You can vote for multiple CI systems if you think that's a good thing. Thanks Ted