[sf-perl] [meeting] Hudson and Perl - why?

David Muir Sharnoff sfpug at dave.sharnoff.org
Thu Jun 10 15:59:45 PDT 2010

Sometimes running the tests takes real effort.    In my case, I want to run
three versions of the software on eight OS platforms and each of those
runs takes
more than half an hour.   Having a CI system handle it has benefits.


On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, James Briggs <james at actionmessage.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:08:54 -0700, Fred Moyer wrote
>> Joe McMahon will be talking about Hudson on June 22nd at 7pm, at the
>> office of Mother Jones (located on Sutter street, please login to
>> Meetup for the exact address).
>> "Continuous integration" sounds like a great idea: you automatically
>> run your build on every checkin, so you know very soon after you've
>> committed if you make a mistake or checked in a bug. However, like
>> any properly lazy Perl programmer, the last thing you want to do is write
>> more code; you want to take advantage of work that's already done:
>> that's Hudson.
> Hi folks.
> I've worked as a build and release engineer on compiler projects with CI
> tools like Buildbot. There was a clear benefit from continuous builds
> with multiple programmers modifying a large C code base.
> But since scripting languages don't have a compile or link stage, I'm a
> little puzzled at the utility of Hudson with Perl projects.
> I guess you could have Hudson run perl -c on each source file, and run
> the tests.
> (I just use a batch file for that on a 100,000 line Perl project.)
> Anybody care to share some examples of using a CI tool with Perl where
> there was a benefit to developers?
> Thanks,
> James
> _______________________________________________
> SanFrancisco-pm mailing list
> SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm

More information about the SanFrancisco-pm mailing list