[Scummvm-devel] The new Buildbot: what’s happening, what needs to happen

[Colin Snover]

Hi Travis,

Thanks for your feedback. Responses are inline.

On 2017-12-20 21:26, Travis Howell wrote:
>
> I really need to clarify this point, Eugene asked via email whether I
> could provide a Windows build with WinSparkle support for ScummVM
> 1.9.0. I responded quickly that another developer would be required
> for WinSparkle support, since I disagreed with pushing untested
> updates, and MinGW lacked the required API support for compiling
> WinSparkle at the time. As usual I get no response at all, and only
> see complaints on IRC later. I confirmed the compilation guide for
> MinGW still worked at the time, other than a broken link or two. The
> requested Windows build for Windows 9x/ME I provided (still online at
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7wJOP5u3deTRi0wZ2RNTzAwNkU ), was
> never even added to the web site either.

I can validate that it can be very frustrating when people don’t respond
to questions or comments, and, I don’t currently understand how this
clarification addresses my argument regarding the need for a policy
requiring worker images for ports. You made a totally valid personal
decision not to continue to create Windows release builds because you
disagreed with the use of Sparkle, which you are completely entitled to
do, and that decision did mean that extra work had to be done for the
release because there was no pre-existing compilation environment image
for Windows for another person to take over with. If there had been a
policy requiring an image at that time, it would have been trivial
another team member to continue Windows releases after the team decided
that it was better on balance for users to enable automatic updates.
Instead, this toolchain had to be rebuilt by another team member at
their own expense. To me, this clearly demonstrates a benefit that such
a policy would have in the future to ensure the continuity of our builds.

> I could have easily continued to provide working Windows release
> binaries, if people would were more interested in providing a stable
> release build, rather than pushing untested updates to people.
>
> I still think using buildbot for release builds is a bad idea in
> general, unless the build environment on buildbot matches the build
> environment used by the porter exactly. Otherwise there is the chance
> of problems due to different compiler parts been used, especially in
> the case of cross-compilation. It has happened a few times in the past
> with the Windows port, due to those differences.

I understand my original email was long, and I would encourage you to
please read through all of it if you are interested in continuing to
provide feedback in this thread, as I did explain that the goal here is
to automate the releases, and that the new Buildbot worker images are
identical to the “build environment used by the porter” as they *are* to
be the build environments created and used by the porters.

> On a side note, I'm still waiting for a response to my email about
> whether Windows XP support still works in the Windows build of ScummVM
> 2.0.0, since it was mentioned as been built with mingw-w64. mingw-w64
> dropped Windows XP support, according to note on the mingw-w64
> compilation guide on the ScummVM wiki. 

In order to keep things on topic, anything not directly related to this
Buildbot discussion, such as the existence of other manually created
builds or missed responses to other emails, I would encourage you to
create a separate thread or follow up directly with anyone else if you
feel your needs have not been fully addressed. If you feel that this
information is directly applicable to the discussion regarding the new
Buildbot and the proposed worker image requirement, I would appreciate
it if you could provide more clarification as to how it is so.

Thanks,

-- 
Colin Snover
https://zetafleet.com