Re: [brlcad-devel] Proposed revisions to HACKING
Open Source Solid Modeling CAD
Brought to you by:
brlcad
From: Christopher S. M. <br...@ma...> - 2011-02-02 16:49:11
|
On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Tom Browder wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 08:27, Clifford Yapp <cli...@gm...> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Tom Browder <tom...@gm...> wrote: > ... >> It might be worth checking how much work CDash would be to set up with >> the new CMake build system - that was on my longer term TODO but after >> the CMake build proper was integrated. > > To me CDash seems a logical one to use if BRL-CAD is going totally to CMake. Any of them would probably suit our needs just fine. There are minor tradeoffs with all of them that pretty much level the playing field. It's more just someone taking the plunge to set one of them up. The last continuous integration we had set up was a fork of CruiseControl implemented in Ruby, "cleverly" named CruiseControl.rb (http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com/). I don't really have much negative to say about it other than instability from Ruby -- it'd get stuck and need to be reset a lot. The interface is probably even better than the main CC project, but then maintenance was non-optimal. I don't think any of the three options on the table suffer from the problems it had but they do have their own individual failings. CDash will probably be a little easier to integrate with CMake, but then isn't near as expressive or clean on the build summary and reporting capabilities. CruiseControl probably has the best interface but I don't believe has IRC reporting. BuildBot has IRC reporting, but is similarly lacking on the interface side. By my counts, it's pretty much a wash -- whomever spends their precious time setting it up can decide which they get to play with. :) Screenshot examples of all three attached. Cheers! Sean CruiseControl: CDash: BuildBot: |