[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CI

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: CI
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 01:13:51 +0100
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)


Flávio Cruz, le mar. 05 déc. 2023 01:27:30 -0500, a ecrit:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 8:30 PM Samuel Thibault <[1]samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
> wrote:
> > Yes, sure, anything will do.
> >
> > I essentially mean that "we" shouldn't be me.
> >
> > For a start, just testing that the whole thing just builds in the
> > various situations would be a *VAST* improvement, considering the amount
> > of time I spend on just that.
> >
> > Then there was recently some work on building simple userland tests,
> > that can be easily tested as well.
> >
> > Essentially, any regression that people usually find ("doesn't build",
> > "doesn't boot", etc.) is worth testing. That can also be simply running
> > the glibc testsuite in the resulting build.
> I have a simple CI setup in my cross-hurd github repository, see [2]https://
> github.com/flavioc/cross-hurd/actions/runs/7080757561
> It uses 4 different build configurations and it runs on my home server on a
> daily basis.

Nice :)

> I have sent quite a few patches throughout the last year or so
> because things would fail to build from time to time.

I'd say failures should be notified on commit-hurd@gnu.org, so you're
not the only one to fix issues.

> The issue is that I am building with my own scripts, so things are not
> configured like Debian GNU/Hurd or even using the same patches,

That's not necessarily a problem. The debian-only patches are supposed
to be minimal, and having diversity in tests is usually a good thing.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]