Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

build: backport config for new CI infrastructure to v0.10 #3965

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

rvagg
Copy link
Member

@rvagg rvagg commented Nov 22, 2015

Same as #3642 but for v0.10. Almost the same code but ICU is not here so that all had to be ripped out. I also had to remove the --download* stuff from Jenkins when the Node version is ^0\.10.

Test build is here: https://nodejs.org/download/nightly/v0.10.41-nightly20151122fe730a2943/

I believe this is ready for a review. In line with my comments in #3642, I think that any of the LICENSE or README stuff that already exists in master should be changed there first and backported to these branches rather than these older branches diverging.

I'll push a v0.10.41-rc.1 soon, would appreciate if I could get some +1's from tests of the binaries at the above URL though.

@mscdex mscdex added build Issues and PRs related to build files or the CI. v0.10 labels Nov 22, 2015

====
"""

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

By making additive changes to the license, are we changing it? If so, it is valid? Have we consulted someone familiar with the topic on that matter?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

see #3979

For now I'm just copying what's already been done—most of which was done without seeking solid legal advice (and some of it done after ignoring some legal advice ..), now the Foundation has resources we should take it there.

Can we agree to merge this and update from master down when we have proper legal advice to work with?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we agree to merge this and update from master down when we have proper legal advice to work with?

Updating the LICENSE file when we know that we don't know what we're doing seems like a bad idea, especially if it's actually not needed to continue releasing v0.10.x versions. So instead I would suggest not merging these changes, and waiting until we have legal advice to update these files across all relevant branches.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@misterdjules agreed, removed from this branch

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Nov 24, 2015

As per my comment on the v0.12 PR, I've removed the LICENSE updates from this PR and am asking we isolate README bikeshedding to #3998 as this is really just (mostly) a copy of what's in master.

Still looking for reviews so we can get a v0.10 out sometime.

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Dec 3, 2015

Updated to match the work merged at #3642, reviews appreciated if anyone is around, @orangemocha, @jbergstroem?

rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 3, 2015
rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 3, 2015
PR-URL: #3965
Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]>
rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 3, 2015
PR-URL: #3965
Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]>
@orangemocha
Copy link
Contributor

It seems that the v0.10-staging branch is behind the v0.10 branch. That doesn't seem right.

if defined nosnapshot set nosnapshot_arg=--without-snapshot
if defined noetw set noetw_arg=--without-etw& set noetw_msi_arg=/p:NoETW=1
if defined noperfctr set noperfctr_arg=--without-perfctr& set noperfctr_msi_arg=/p:NoPerfCtr=1
if defined build_release (
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unlike v0.12, we don't set build_release when build-release is passed as argument, so this if statement will never be true. See build-release above. Best to check this after v0.10-staging is rebased on v0.10 though.

rvagg and others added 4 commits December 4, 2015 06:40
When MSBuild invokes rc.exe, it passes NODE_TAG unstringified, but
passes it correctly to cl.exe. Hence, this workaround was made to
apply only to the resource file.

Fixes: nodejs#2963
PR-URL: nodejs#3053
Reviewed-By: Alexis Campailla <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]>
@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Dec 3, 2015

fixed the build_release bit, rebased on v0.10-staging which seems fine to me

@orangemocha
Copy link
Contributor

rebased on v0.10-staging which seems fine to me

Yes, sorry, I had gotten confused by the fact that the PR was not rebased.

LGTM

@orangemocha
Copy link
Contributor

CI is also looking good (though the linter should not be running for v0.10): https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/1334/

@jbergstroem
Copy link
Member

Looks good to me (long form LGTM); didn't have to rebase. Fwiw, I've seen most of this in the 0.12 merge already.

rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 3, 2015
PR-URL: #3965
Reviewed-By: Alexis Campailla <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]>
rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 3, 2015
PR-URL: #3965
Reviewed-By: Alexis Campailla <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]>
rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 3, 2015
PR-URL: #3965
Reviewed-By: Alexis Campailla <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]>
@rvagg rvagg closed this Dec 3, 2015
@rvagg rvagg deleted the v0.10-build-update branch December 3, 2015 21:32
@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Dec 3, 2015

thanks, landed as

  • d7ae79a build,win: fix node.exe resource version
  • 5d829a6 doc: backport README.md
  • c559c79 build: backport tools/release.sh
  • 268d2b4 build: backport config for new CI infrastructure

on v0.10-staging

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
build Issues and PRs related to build files or the CI.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants