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

[Marcus Comstedt]

Hi Colin,

Colin Snover <scummvm-devel at zetafleet.com> writes:

> I would appreciate it if you would please use a more respectful tone
> when communicating regarding these issues, so everyone feels safe and
> welcome to participate in the discussion.

I was merely pointing out the factual error in your strong claim.
I find it rather amusing though that you in one breath call for a
inclusive and respectful tone and in the next dismiss a porters
opinion on how they want to build their own port as "not relevant".
:-)


> If you do
> not have an x86_64 computer, I would be happy to find you an inexpensive
> used one so you may use the prebuilt images from Docker Hub,

Thanks but no thanks.  I've never owned an x86 computer in my life and
I never intend to get one.  In order to be invited into my home a
computer needs to exhibit a more elegant instruction set, not a kludge
upon a kludge upon an 1970:s design.  :-)  My next computer is already
set to be the Talos II (https://www.raptorcs.com/).


> If you believe that there is a need to hand-split and add curated demos,
> then simply update the Dockerfile and/or buildbot.cfg for the Dreamcast
> worker with these changes whenever it is time to adjust the split or the
> demos.

You may have missed the point that the best point to do this
evaluation and possible adjustment is after the actual release
binaries have been built, since that is when the exact memory
footprint is known.  Then again, if the buildbot configuration
is in a separate reposiory as it is now, then I guess the end of the
release process could become something like this:

1) At day D, Scummvm repo is tagged for release R
2) Porters now have 7 days or so to do tweaks to the buildbot
   configuration and observe the results produced by the buildbot
3) At day D+7 the buildbot repo is tagged for release R, buildbot
   builds releases using the tags created in 1) and 3)

Was something like that what you had in mind?  Since nothing changes
in the sources after 1), it should be possible to make reliable
predictions about the output at 3) during the 7 days if you are the
only one modifying the buildbot config for your port.


> Then the automated builder is up-to-date and the release process
> can continue to be fully automated and maintained by other team members
> whenever you are no longer available to do so.

Well, it's not really "fully automated" since the checks and tweaking
still need to be done, by me or by someone else.  I'm not saying this
is a problem with your proposal, since we have that problem anyway.
I'm just saying it's not a silver bullet.  Porters will always need to
be involved to create working releases.


  // Marcus