Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE's KWin Seeing More Continuous Integration Work

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • KDE's KWin Seeing More Continuous Integration Work

    Phoronix: KDE's KWin Seeing More Continuous Integration Work

    KDE developer Martin Gräßlin has written more about KWin's auto test suite with KDE system administrators having set up a new continuous integration system...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Does CI have a place in 2017? Unless I'm missing something, it's a reminiscent of svn (or worse) days.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by bug77 View Post
      Does CI have a place in 2017? Unless I'm missing something, it's a reminiscent of svn (or worse) days.
      CI = Continuous Integration [Testing]

      ...as in, every time a commit is pushed to the shared repository, automatically run the whole test suite to make sure it didn't break anything.

      It's how browsers like Chromium and Firefox keep the bugs down while rapidly iterating on two of the most complex codebases in the world and it's only getting more popular.

      Travis-CI is an example of a provider of "free for open-source, paid for private projects" CI services which only works with GitHub.
      Last edited by ssokolow; 02 July 2017, 12:51 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        ssokolow Ah, the most common mistake about CI. What you've described is continuous build. CI is the practice of committing at the end of each work day, even if your work is incomplete (hence the term "continuous"). Back when VCSes didn't know rebase, it was the only way to mitigate ugly, humongous merges.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bug77 View Post
          ssokolow Ah, the most common mistake about CI. What you've described is continuous build. CI is the practice of committing at the end of each work day, even if your work is incomplete (hence the term "continuous"). Back when VCSes didn't know rebase, it was the only way to mitigate ugly, humongous merges.
          In modern days the issue isn't about VCS lack of rebase function but about review-ability and reverse-ability of the changes (human issues). A large patch touching many things (also maybe for unrelated features) is a pain to review, and if some part of it has to be reverted later it's better if it is split up.

          It seems CB was merged into CI some time along the way and now CI is strongly about testing stuff after it went in to make sure nothing broke, so I doubt that people can send in incomplete changes. Also the blog post is about testing stuff automatically not about committing at the end of each day.

          Also wikipedia (which is 100% true all the time) says that it got kinda merged with CB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contin...ation#Workflow

          A complementary practice to CI is that before submitting work, each programmer must do a complete build and run (and pass) all unit tests. Integration tests are usually run automatically on a CI server when it detects a new commit.

          Comment


          • #6
            Yeah, I read the blog post after I wrote that first post. I've developed some sort of reflex when it comes to CI, after seeing the term misused so often, that why I asked. That and the misuse of unit/integration test terms irk me to no end.

            And back to your post, it's easier to review something that has been rebased, because you're looking at changes on top of HEAD. It's also possible to submit a large feature as a series of smaller commits. But CI, as it was originally defined, is pretty much dead.

            P.S. I almost forgot about the abuse CD gets these days. Almost nobody's sending freshly committed code directly to production, but everyone thinks they're almost doing continuous delivery. Because it's hip.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bug77 View Post
              Yeah, I read the blog post after I wrote that first post. I've developed some sort of reflex when it comes to CI, after seeing the term misused so often, that why I asked. That and the misuse of unit/integration test terms irk me to no end.
              Well, then just take it as a friendly warning, if everyone "misuses" a term then it becomes "correct". It's the language evolution.

              EDIT: and this comes from someone that is pissed off by people saying spacecraft are "in flight".

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                Well, then just take it as a friendly warning, if everyone "misuses" a term then it becomes "correct". It's the language evolution.

                EDIT: and this comes from someone that is pissed off by people saying spacecraft are "in flight".
                But that would take consistent misuse. What irks me is people using the same term but meaning different things. Makes for "interesting" meeting follow-ups. Oh well, must me my ocd kicking in...

                Comment

                Working...
                X