Request for stable, automated build process

Joachim Steiger roh at openmoko.org
Fri May 2 16:20:21 CEST 2008


Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> This is all good and well, however there's one inherently problematic issue to 
> consider here. Continuous integration is very good and very possible (and we 
> need and will to use it to improve quality), however where it really shines 
> is, when the complete stack is under your control.
> 
> Unfortunately (or rahter, luckily?), 80% of the Openmoko distribution actually 
> is not under Openmoko's control and we do not want to go and open a 
> repository and (effectively) fork all upstream projects.

indeed.
i thought of something more generic like bitbake invoking make check and
put patches to add tests into the upstream packages into OE for now,
with the goal for these to move upstream.
after all, thats where tests belong and should be maintained.
too bad the usual FOSS has a rather bad testcaseratio

also i believe true CI will be problematic since the checkin rate is
sometimes much higher than what buildhost could build. (cron triggered)

-- 

Joachim Steiger
developer relations/support



More information about the openmoko-devel mailing list