Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Regression testing modular Boost
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-26 10:02:14
On 12/25/2012 3:08 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Tue Dec 25 2012, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 12:25 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Sun Dec 16 2012, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>
>>>> Hm.. That's barely a step :-\ ..And there's no need to branch. The tools
>>>> already support multiple transport methods so we can just add another.
>>>> Which brings me to one of the transport methods regression testing
>>>> currently supports.. Downloading the current trunk/release as a ZIP
>>>> archive. I was hoping to use the github facility that exists for
>>>> downloading ZIPs of the repos. But unfortunately I couldn't make it
>>>> attached the contents of the indirect references to the library
>>> That's right, unfortunately. However, we can get the exact URLs of the
>>> ZIP files from the GitHub API. I've recently done some scripting with
>>> e.g. https://github.com/ryppl/ryppl/blob/develop/scripts/github2bitbucket.py#L40
>>> In fact, I think someone has coded up what's needed to make a monolithic
>>> zip here:
>> After looking at both of those I see no point in using the github api
>> (or additional structure data from sublime -- not totally sure where
>> the submodule info comes from in this case though) for this as it
>> provides no additional information than one can get from just parsing
>> the ".gitmodules" file.
> I'm pretty sure that's not correct. The .gitmodules file doesn't contain
> information about which commit to check out for each submodule.
Right it doesn't. But your ryppl code doesn't handle that either since
it fetches the repos individually from the non-version-specific master
branches (AFAICT). And the sublime code uses its own metadata files,
".sublime-package" and "package-metadata.json", to determine what to
get. Although I can't tell if that contains specific version info. But
since it also looks like it works with clone repos perhaps it doesn't
need to worry about that.
>>>> Hence the complexity of supporting testing with ZIPs is now a
>>>> magnitude larger as it means dealing with fetching more than a hundred
>>>> individual repos :-(
>> Which now seems the only choice. At the tester side I will have to get
>> the boost-master archive. Then parse out the ".gitmodules" file. And
>> get each subrepo archive individually. Which increases the likelihood
>> of failure considerably.
> I'm not sure. Isn't it true that shorter transfers are more likely to
> succeed than longer ones?
Perhaps, if one happens to have an not reliable internet connection. But
I would expect testers to have reliable connections. But that's a minor
unreliability.. The more likely problem is in code bugs in the testing
-- -- 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, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk