[riot-devel] RIOT's CI system
martin.landsmann at haw-hamburg.de
Tue Mar 21 13:21:22 CET 2017
first thx all for the effort collecting the requirements, pros and cons
for the proposed CIs.
While going through the spreadsheet I stumbled upon row 28, i.e. 'Cope
with dynamic set of workers'.
I would appreciate to get more information why the scoring seems to
state, what I interpret of it,
that Jenkins is totally unable to handle the cases, or does it in an
Am 21.03.2017 um 12:23 schrieb Oleg Hahm:
> Hi Thomas!
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:17:07AM -0700, Thomas Eichinger wrote:
>> Reading the document provided it seems to me that Jenkins actually
>> got a better score than Murdock 2. (Please tell me if I am mistaken
>> and misinterpret the table.)
> No, you are correct. Jenkins got a slightly higher score than Murdock, but the
> scoring system is not really balanced and the difference is only ~5% and hence
>> Because of this I'd very much appreciate a little bit more of information
>> on why this group came to the conclusion Murdock 2 is still better
>> fitting RIOT than Jenkins.
>> I do not intend to bash the task force results just try to better
>> understand the reasoning.
> No worries, actually, I appreciate your inquiry. Indeed the conclusion was
> that both CI systems are well suited for our needs. Jenkins may be a bit
> stronger in some aspects while Murdock 2 scores in other aspects. Finally, we
> wanted to come up with a concrete proposal and decided to recommend Murdock 2
> for a rather indirect argument: whatever CI is chosen, we can never be certain
> that we're gonna to be happy with that decision forever (as the past has
> shown). However, if we now decide for Jenkins it is very likely that the
> development of Murdock 2 will stop and we can never go back - while the other
> way should be always possible.
> I hope that answers your question(s). Otherwise, please let me know and I will
> happily try to explain it better.
> devel mailing list
> devel at riot-os.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel