http://www.rust-ci.org/

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2014-02-26 05:50, Brad Roberts wrote:

> The 'build' part of the auto-tester is the easiest part.  The majority
> of the logic is in what to build when and the user interface on top of
> that state.  None of that exists for this use case.  It's not hard
> logic, but it would need to be built.
>
> This use case can likely also ignore the multi-platform part and stick
> to just building on one which simplifies the job significantly.  And it
> can also likely all be done on one box since it's likely that it can all
> be done in a relatively short period of time.
>
> All that, in my mind, suggests that while it could be integrated into
> the auto-tester, it gains little in doing so and puts more work on my
> plate and more load on already loaded systems.  I think having a new
> volunteer involved would be more long term beneficial.

How much worked would it be to rewrite the auto tester to not use the 
proprietary systems it currently does? I'm thinking this would make it 
easier for others to help.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg