[nanomsg] Re: New fork (was Re: Moving forward)

  • From: Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 08:26:14 -0700

> On Mar 20, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Bent Cardan <bent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I second everything you wrote Garrett.
> When we get windows building on master I think it would be a substantial 
> milestone from which we could this move this project off the beta versioning 
> and switch to semver. Well something to think about.

I’m keen to get to a 1.0 release.  We’re not there yet.  There are protocol 
bugs to be fixed (I pushed the surveyor fix by the way), and I want to clean up 
some of the assertions that make use of the library in production code a little 
risky.  And yes, I want to have CI and self tests running on as many platforms 
as easily achievable.

> Now if we want PR ci integration with an iOS build then the obvious solution 
> is CircleCI.

Well, we’d have to have a working iOS build, etc.  I know some work is done 
there, but I’m not sure of the state.  Its kind of funny how there are 18 
gazillion different CI providers.

> In response to Dirkjan, the difference between gitter and #freenode IRC is 
> analogous to the difference between code hosted on Google project versus code 
> you can host on github. 
> In gitter you can reply to the chat with github flavored markdown style code 
> syntax highlighting. 
> But the best part is that the chatroom is a persisted storage venue. This is 
> good and bad. It's good because if you miss some cool conversation, you get 
> free history. This is also bad for the same reason. If you make regrettable 
> statement at some point then it will be part of the free history of the chat. 

Believe me, if you make a regrettable remark on IRC, it will be archived 
forever.  It won’t show up in the chat room, but it *will* be available via 
google ~forever.  The moral of the story is — don’t ever say anything online 
you think you might regret in the future. :-)  That’s as true for IRC or any 
other chat technology as it is for mailing lists.

        - Garrett

> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 5:30 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Martin Lucina <martin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I was planning on migrating at least some of the slaves (Linux, FreeBSD) to
>>>> Xen VMs on different physical hardware which I host elsewhere, however if
>>>> you are going to migrate to Travis then I'd rather just save myself doing
>>>> the work and switch it all off.
>>> IIRC Travis only runs Linux and a trial of OS X, so it might still be
>>> worth it to preserve some of the other stuff. On other hand, maybe
>>> Garrett has another solution in mind for this.
>> Looking at what we have today, if we can keep the build slaves running for 
>> just a wee bit longer, I think it would be useful.  I would like to get 
>> travis CI up and running — at least part of the reason for this is so that 
>> other people can follow the recipes there and validate their own PRs.  
>> (Plus, Travis has *very* nice PR support— you can pre-test your PRs before 
>> merging, and everyone can see those test results, including the PR 
>> submitter.)
>> I'll have to chat up the Travis people to ask about OS X support.  I suspect 
>> that FreeBSD is not going to be easy to come by, and that support for 
>> Solaris is going to be nigh impossible — particularly SPARC.   But it also 
>> sounds like you’re planning on retiring the SPARC servers you have?
>> That said, we’re going to miss CI for a lot of other platforms — people are 
>> running nanomsg on ARM systems, in iOS, on OpenBSD, NetBSD, HPUX, VxWorks 
>> (?), etc.  We can’t have CI for all of them at this point in time.  The loss 
>> of FreeBSD would be a shame, and I have personal reasons for wishing we’d 
>> have CI support for Solaris or illumos (esp. the latter), but again, I don’t 
>> think any of the CI providers have an interest.
>> Right now, its unclear to me that our current CI setup does anything more 
>> than verifying that stuff builds.  The self tests don’t seem to be built 
>> unless building with cmake on Windows.  That’s something that needs to be 
>> fixed.  Frankly, I think there is more value in having the self-tests 
>> execute, even if *only* on Linux, then on ensuring we are still building on 
>> other platforms. (Not that I want to stop supporting those other platforms.)
>> The other thing I’d to do is get us using appveyor for Windows testing.  I’m 
>> most definitely *not* a Windows developer, but it seems that there is a lot 
>> of effort that has been expended to support that platform, and it would be 
>> nice if we could ensure we didn’t regress on it.  That becomes especially 
>> important as I don’t have any systems running windows within normal easy 
>> reach of me.
>>   - Garrett

Other related posts: