Proposal: Add v3-4-test to the build farm, and revamp the build farm policy

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 12:54 -0700, Tim Prouty wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Now that v3-4-test has been created, the goal is to aggressively  
> stabilize the branch and prepare it for release in the next few  
> months.  Internally we are putting significant QA resources into  
> testing v3-4-test, and it is my desire to work toward making it rock  
> solid as the v3-4 release approaches.  To keep the code base stable,  
> it is critical that v3-4-test is regularly built and tested in the  
> build farm so that obvious bugs can be caught early and fixed.
> 
> This brings up a larger point that the build farm names aren't very  
> well mapped to the new release model that has been adopted.  For  
> example, while it's important that v3-4-test is built regularly, this  
> doesn't mean v3-3-test is ready to be removed from the build farm.   
> While it doesn't probably make sense to have a build farm target for  
> every branch in git, there is a lot to be gained from regularly  
> building and testing the branches that are under active development,  
> and that are soon to be released.
> 
> I propose that we rename:
> samba_3_X_devel -> samba_3_master
> samba_3_X_test -> samba_3_3_test
> 
> And add:
> samba_3_4_test

While I agree with the rename, I do think it is a problem having so many
different Samba branches building.  It does pose a rather large load
(disk space and build space when there is churn) on the build farm
machines.  

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20090316/6b187f95/attachment.bin