# Continuous integration on top of rubyforge SVN, your opinion? **URL:** \ **Category:** IronRuby\ **Created:** [March 25, 2008, 10:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/continuous-integration-on-top-of-rubyforge-svn-your-opinion/132853 "2008-03-25T10:53:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![thbar](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@thbar](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/thbar)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2008, 10:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/continuous-integration-on-top-of-rubyforge-svn-your-opinion/132853/1 "2008-03-25T10:53:18Z")
Hi, What about setting up a basic continuous integration process to ensure we keep the core compiling (if not more) ? I believe internally at Microsoft this process is already in place with TFS. It could be useful (see previous threads last week) to have a continuous integration monitoring the rubyforge SVN as well. It’s a bit of pain to retrieve the trunk to discover it doesn’t compile isn’t it ? I suggest the following tasks: - full clean then rake compile (for windows, for mono) - possibly: full clean then msbuild - a notification to ironruby-core when the build status changes (a flawless “clean” ie deleting the whole folder then running svn update could be nice). We could implement this with a box (hosted at Microsoft ?) and cruisecontrol.rb, for instance. What do you think ? cheers, – Thibaut [blog] [http://evolvingworker.com](http://evolvingworker.com) - tools for a better day [blog] [http://blog.logeek.fr](http://blog.logeek.fr) - learning content for developers ---
**Author:** ![thbar](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@thbar](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/thbar)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/continuous-integration-on-top-of-rubyforge-svn-your-opinion/132853/2 "2008-03-25T14:46:09Z")
Thibaut Barrère: > What about setting up a basic continuous integration process to ensure > we keep the core compiling (if not more) ? This is a good idea. > I believe internally at Microsoft this process is already in place > with TFS. It could be useful (see previous threads last week) to have > a continuous integration monitoring the rubyforge SVN as well. We have a set of check-in gates here called SNAP that runs off of TFS. When we submit our changes (or your changes) to SNAP, it runs through a set of check-in tests. SNAP parallelizes our tests across a farm of ~20 machines. It takes at least 30 minutes for SNAP to complete a check-in for Ruby. Once SNAP blesses the check-in it submits it to TFS and commits the change. As you might imagine, we don’t have Linux in our test matrix, and it would be a very large work item to add it to SNAP. In a way, we’re really relying on you (this means you, Seo :)) to keep filing bug reports on whether things are building and running on Mono. > It’s a bit of pain to retrieve the trunk to discover it doesn’t > compile isn’t it ? This is entirely my fault. As I was rewriting the Rakefile to deal with multiple targets and fixing the source and project transformations, things got in an inconsistent state. Things should be much better from this point onward. We also have a gap in our SNAP tests - the specs weren’t reporting some failures for some reason (we’re investigating why) and that caused the breakage in the rake spec test suite which was fixed yesterday. > I suggest the following tasks: > > - full clean then rake compile (for windows, for mono) > - possibly: full clean then msbuild > - a notification to ironruby-core when the build status changes > > (a flawless “clean” ie deleting the whole folder then running svn > update could be nice). > > We could implement this with a box (hosted at Microsoft ?) and > cruisecontrol.rb, for instance. While this is a good idea for Mono, I’m not sure what this buys us that SNAP doesn’t already for Windows. In an ideal world we would have Mono in SNAP, but that isn’t happening anytime soon … It seems like Seo’s doing a good job of being a human CI server for the Mono builds - do we need more for the time being? Thanks, -John ---
**Author:** ![thbar](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@thbar](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/thbar)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2008, 9:00am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/continuous-integration-on-top-of-rubyforge-svn-your-opinion/132853/3 "2008-03-26T09:00:56Z")
Hi John, Thanks for the SNAP insight first! I believe it’s enough for the time being. Out of curiosity, is SNAP calling the rake task ? If we meet inconsistencies in the future (ie things work in TFS but not from a SVN/rubyforge user point of view), it may be worth setting up something though. cheers – Thibaut