smoke.parrotcode is dead, long life to Smolder

[Michael Peters]

François Perrad wrote:

 > But we lost some features :
 >  - make smokej
 >      was 'make smoke' with JIT option

Smolder let's you tag smoke reports, so we'd just need to make a target that did a JIT smoke run and 
tagged it such.

>   - perl t/harness --html
>       create a big HTML file with TAP results
>       I skipped this kind of files with setup-Parrot-0.x.y.exe .
>       I consider it a good QA practice.

Why do you need to create local HTML files? You can use Smolder to get the same kinds of reports.

>   - make languages-smoke
>       was a smoke for most of languages

Since most languages are going to separate from Parrot eventually and be their own projects I'd 
consider this a waste of effort.

> Currently, smolder.plusthree.com hosts 2 projects : Parrot & Pipp.
> 
> How create project (with different project ID) for other languages ?
> Who has this privilege ?

I run that smolder install. But at some point we might want to consider putting a new install on 
some other Parrot Foundation server (smolder.parrot.org?) to make it more obvious and to remove me 
as a bottleneck. It's also currently on server my company is letting me use, which prevents me from 
opening up access to more people (we also host our internal projects on the same install).

> Languages need smoke, even the small or obfuscated one.

If it's built-in to parrot and will remain with parrot source code, then yes that could definitely 
be possible.

> If we don't setup this kind of infrastructure, most of languages (except 
> Rakudo) will die before the Parrot 1.0 milestone.
> 
> Today, I prefer the idea of a project for each language than a project 
> with all languages.

I'm open to setting up a project for each language that wants it. Or helping the Parrot Foundation 
setup it's own smolder install (I'll be hopefully doing some smolder hacking over the holiday break, 
so we should probably wait until after that's done).

> Now, a cosmetic remark about Smolder summary view, the SVN revision is 
> missing. This information is only available in the detailed view of each 
> report.

Yes, that's been reported and is something that I'm hoping to address in the next couple of weeks.

-- 
Michael Peters
Plus Three, LP