[Buildbot-devel] Full-Time buildbot developer available...!
john at smadness.com
Tue Feb 10 16:52:28 UTC 2009
On Feb 10, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>>>> I'd also like to be able to subscribe a single buildslave to
>>> Out of curiosity, what is the rationale for this ? While I can see
>>> being hard to maintain multiple buildmasters, build slaves are
>>> and allowing them to serve multiple projects just complicates things
>>> without much benefit.
>> Build slaves aren't always cheap. Depending on what you're
>> testing, ideally you'd want one machine for each build slave.
>> Registering multiple build slaves per machine can start running on
>> each others toes, especially when you're testing system software.
> I see, and agree. However, that can already be dealt with on the
> build master side, i.e. via coordinated scheduling and locking.
But that's my point, making sure the build master knows the status of
the build slave only occurs once per master control program. To get
the benefits of many, many projects running (scheduled, without
stepping on each others' toes) on a single build slave, they all have
to be scheduled and locked by one master. Which then means that you
run into the original statement of cluttering one master with many
I would indeed love to see the ability to have a pool of slaves, that
can license themselves out to different masters, fully coordinated and
lockable, so that many teams could implement their own buildbot master
and share the same slave resources.
support the arts!
updated October 12, 2005
More information about the devel