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

Add AppVeyor configuration to the repo #37182

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2016
Merged

Conversation

alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

We hope to move to AppVeyor in the near future off of Buildbot + EC2. This adds
an appveyor.yml configuration file which is ready to run builds on the auto
branch. This is also accompanied with a few minor fixes to the build system and
such to accomodate AppVeyor.

The intention is that we're not switching over to AppVeyor entirely just yet,
but rather we'll watch the builds for a week or so. If everything checks out
then we'll start gating on AppVeyor instead of Buildbot!

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @brson

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

We hope to move to AppVeyor in the near future off of Buildbot + EC2.

👏 👏 👏 👏 👏

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

Unfortunately I've yet to get a "fully green" build on AppVeyor, but I've gotten close enough that I think we're ready to just deal with intermediate problems and/or more closely gauge the needs of the size of the infrastructure.

The most green build I forgot to enable LLVM assertions but the other most green build has some different failures which may be related to the LLVM assertions. I hope to monitor this after it lands to see what's what.

@alexcrichton alexcrichton force-pushed the appveyor branch 7 times, most recently from 4048345 to 28e14ac Compare October 15, 2016 03:33
We hope to move to AppVeyor in the near future off of Buildbot + EC2. This adds
an `appveyor.yml` configuration file which is ready to run builds on the auto
branch. This is also accompanied with a few minor fixes to the build system and
such to accomodate AppVeyor.

The intention is that we're not switching over to AppVeyor entirely just yet,
but rather we'll watch the builds for a week or so. If everything checks out
then we'll start gating on AppVeyor instead of Buildbot!
@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Oct 18, 2016

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 18, 2016

📌 Commit 06d173a has been approved by brson

eddyb added a commit to eddyb/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2016
Add AppVeyor configuration to the repo

We hope to move to AppVeyor in the near future off of Buildbot + EC2. This adds
an `appveyor.yml` configuration file which is ready to run builds on the auto
branch. This is also accompanied with a few minor fixes to the build system and
such to accomodate AppVeyor.

The intention is that we're not switching over to AppVeyor entirely just yet,
but rather we'll watch the builds for a week or so. If everything checks out
then we'll start gating on AppVeyor instead of Buildbot!
eddyb added a commit to eddyb/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2016
Add AppVeyor configuration to the repo

We hope to move to AppVeyor in the near future off of Buildbot + EC2. This adds
an `appveyor.yml` configuration file which is ready to run builds on the auto
branch. This is also accompanied with a few minor fixes to the build system and
such to accomodate AppVeyor.

The intention is that we're not switching over to AppVeyor entirely just yet,
but rather we'll watch the builds for a week or so. If everything checks out
then we'll start gating on AppVeyor instead of Buildbot!
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2016
@bors bors merged commit 06d173a into rust-lang:master Oct 19, 2016
@alexcrichton alexcrichton deleted the appveyor branch November 6, 2016 16:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants