[OpenAFS] buildbot and packages

Jeffrey Altman jaltman@secure-endpoints.com
Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:54:15 -0400


This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig5D01385A11439907E1989278
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My big concern is that nightly installable builds will be a support=20
nightmare.
There are a large number of users that will always take the latest no
matter what.

I realize there is an argument to be made for users being free to do
hang themselves.  But I question whether that is what organizational
help desks are prepared to support.

The real issue that needs to be addressed is how to produce supportable
releases on a more frequent basis.  In the past the consensus among the
gatekeepers has been to move to a biweekly release cycle.  Whatever is
ready for a given release date gets pulled up and anything that isn't,=20
doesn't.

However, this requires having a much greater availability of release
management and testing resources.

Coupled with the biweekly release schedule, I believe it is important
that the web site provide guidance to end users as to which release
build is known to be reliable on which platforms.   Otherwise, users=20
will
always go for the most recent build and frequently end up with something
much less reliable than we would prefer.

Jeffrey Altman


On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:21:08 PM, Jason Edgecombe wrote:
> Are there any objections to doing this for non-windows platforms? It
> could be a nightly build.
>
> On 09/13/2012 12:35 PM, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>> we talked about doing it for releases; this would be a generalized
>> case of it
>>
>> possibly, but i can see it becoming a support nightmare. you're
>> running what??
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Would it be feasible or desirable to have Buildbot actually provide
>>> install-able packages (eg. RPMs on Linux, MSIs on Windows)? It could
>>> help new users confirm "yes, this change fixes my bug".
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info


--------------enig5D01385A11439907E1989278
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQUoA8AAoJENxm1CNJffh4xHMH/j31xggFbY7JEGUZg5ZuQN3q
TpypYaJIUvWS0C4rOvrDXZ1EqE0qLWJdx1DGvonuTqZBNwIej1pM49ul/RjoUR0k
LYwXqlJmflCOighXqkTs3+SQrDbGVmo3TUAN8bNQzFdA9WDRsrljgI9JEs39e7pO
kdamwrKwPWjI+8DNCqJQuANly9i2Kd58hgAO4j4JKFwj23Aodq6mEXP1F/jWA0VP
Hjb3WtKYR8GluTO8sJZbadTiBCk8kNmX5+CXNmRpEY/TeM88A3O1acreMiWR7Nr5
M0SGoR5hMryOTgWK9MPYfvgSAFh2Bq51relY2V5AKvcYs7grtWZRDEym0rT1NHs=
=jhJh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig5D01385A11439907E1989278--