GCC, GNU Toolchain Finally Working To Establish CI/CD For Better Reliability

[gigi]

this is 33 years old and assuming ci/cd is popular since last decade, devs have done excellent job without automation.
hats off!!!!
btw, since when ci/cd has become must or widely accepted?

[alcalde]

Let's hope this project isn't given to Eric S. Raymond and he takes 16 years and requires a supercomputer to do it.

[Michael_S]

Gitlab is open source. Here is the code https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab

Gitlab has a core open source product with proprietary add-ons, which the free software fanatics generally dislike.

The fact it is moving to .. build bot. That is what you used in 2010 when you had to build on weird platforms and was far behind in features/capabilities then.

I was trying to work out why, then it dawned on me GitLab is closed source, Jenkins is MIT License (Open Source), Cruise Control is BSD (Open Source), as you go through the list Build Bot is the only GPL licensed CI tool that exists.

I get the ideology, but at the end of the day choosing something like Jenkins that has the majority of the community and getting automatic Build Verification in place is more important for GCC. If using Open Source instead of "Free" source is upsetting, use the spare time created by having proper a Pull Request workflow to start building a decent solution. Although judging by the number of dead half finished GNU SCM/CI's I found while writing this post...

I suspect the bigger reason for choosing Build Bot is that a GCC developer is almost certainly more comfortable doing "pip install buildbot[tls]" ... than installing Tomcat or Jetty and running jenkins.war on it, or using Docker. And to configure Jenkins without being a web interface click-monkey you have to learn a subset of Groovy syntax for Jenkins Pipelines. That's what we do at work, but we're a Java shop.

I strongly suspect that was a deciding factor.

And as far as GPL CI, I suggest https://sourcehut.org/ - but I suspect the founder of SourceHut alienated the FSF and GNU community because he loves the A/GPL but dislikes a lot of other aspects of the FSF philosophy and GNU projects. (See, for example, his comparison of the GNU libc to musl or his discussion of the reasons the FSF won't accept SourceHut as their 'blessed' source forge tool.)

[ms178]

I have high hopes that all of the GNU toolchain projects will move to Gitlab (or if hell freezes over even Github) somewhen after adopting git finally.

Oh wow DJ Delorie is involved, founder of the DJGPP project. I cut my teeth in C/C++ during the mid 90s using DJGPP's port of GCC to DOS before I got into Linux.

I was given djgpp on a CD to use for practicing for some programming competition.

At school we had only learnt Borland Turbo C++ which had it's own quirks like conio.h (doesn't exist outside of Turbo C++) and not requiring "using namespace std". So I was annoyed with gcc, thought it was a pain in the ass.

Only later did I realise, GCC was following the expected convention, Borland Turbo C++ was a special snowflake doing it's own thing.

There's actually always been CI-style testing going on in the background. What was missing is one centralized Authority with all the System/360s and HP/PAs and *BSDs and embedded SOCs and m68ks and so on you'd need to full CI, including all the cross-build and Canadian-cross-built environments. It's a good thing there's a rando tweet of someone offering all those resources including time commitment, system administration, and integration with upstream feedbacks. Good luck to them keeping this all going.

It's Redhat, lol. You should've read the article. Redhat is offering all of that.

GNU is so sad. They contradict every popular opinion about open source. "open source codebases have more code quality", not GNU! "open source software is better tested", what's testing? I'm so glad the world is moving away from them and on to better projects like Clang.

Lol, those are stupid opinions. Closed source software can also have bad code quality.

Software quality has nothing to do with the license it's distributed under.

[aronwolf]

The fact it is moving to .. build bot. That is what you used in 2010 when you had to build on weird platforms and was far behind in features/capabilities then.

I was trying to work out why, then it dawned on me GitLab is closed source, Jenkins is MIT License (Open Source), Cruise Control is BSD (Open Source), as you go through the list Build Bot is the only GPL licensed CI tool that exists.

I get the ideology, but at the end of the day choosing something like Jenkins that has the majority of the community and getting automatic Build Verification in place is more important for GCC. If using Open Source instead of "Free" source is upsetting, use the spare time created by having proper a Pull Request workflow to start building a decent solution. Although judging by the number of dead half finished GNU SCM/CI's I found while writing this post...

Gitlab is open source. Here is the code https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab

[insilications]

GNU is so sad. They contradict every popular opinion about open source. "open source codebases have more code quality", not GNU! "open source software is better tested", what's testing? I'm so glad the world is moving away from them and on to better projects like Clang.

Posts like this show that the person has no idea how open source works.

[jrch2k8]

GNU is so sad. They contradict every popular opinion about open source. "open source codebases have more code quality", not GNU! "open source software is better tested", what's testing? I'm so glad the world is moving away from them and on to better projects like Clang.

Jesus google stuff a bit before posting ...