Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-09 11:40:38
For what I'm not quoting.. Right, got it, yes.
On 2/9/2011 9:58 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> At Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:10:03 -0600,
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> ...that any additional required programs/scripts would ideally be automatically
>> installed to a sandbox (i.e. locally to not need system administrator
> Naturally. You know I've been thinking about these things. virtualenv is
> really good for that.
Ah, right, I had forgotten about virtualenv. Even though I've used it
recently to do trac installs.
>> I see. Is there a way to do the same without Git? I.e. do the tar/zip archives
>> available from github contain the same files as the clone+submodules?
> Yes. The tarball won't contain the submodules, but references to them that can
> be similarly downloaded and untar'd.
OK, so it will take a bit more work on the download to create the
integrated tree for the current testing. Hopefully it's easy to
determine what one needs to do from the archive of the superproject and
>> Currently yes. But it's possible to make it not be required. It would be
>> straightforward to change the regression scripts to download a new tree, using
>> the tar archive option
> Don't forget Windows; no tar there usually.
Sorry.. Everywhere I mentioned tar replace it with tar/zip. I keep
forgetting to be complete when writing the long emails ;-)
>> No, there's more. The assumption is that testers have the capability to open a
>> port. Also assumes that we want them open a port.
> Wha? I never meant to imply we were going to ask testers to open a port!
> The current system has to communicate over the web, which means *some* port has
> to be open somewhere, to talk to the outside world. The same would apply, and
> we'd make sure any of the most commonly-open ports (e.g. 80) will work. Just as
> it is now. That's a no-brainer, isn't it?
Sorry.. At the mention of buildbot I assumed there was a port to open.
Since that what I remember from my last use of it. I.e. that the
connections between the master & slaves is done through a non-standard
port. And hence, if you happen to be behind a restrictive firewall,
you'll have to fidget with opening ports (or using a proxy). One aspect
of many restrictive firewalls is that they are statefull and will only
allow HTTP traffic through 80 (and 443), but not through others. SO what
I'm saying is that it's not such a no-brainer ;-) It takes some
consideration as to what you send through which ports. Or provide some
central public proxy to provide the HTTP encapsulation to get around
PS. Thanks for being patient with my interrogation :-)
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk