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

Appveyor without appveyor.yml #155

Closed
jayvdb opened this issue Jun 8, 2015 · 1 comment
Closed

Appveyor without appveyor.yml #155

jayvdb opened this issue Jun 8, 2015 · 1 comment

Comments

@jayvdb
Copy link
Contributor

jayvdb commented Jun 8, 2015

Sometimes you want to do a Win32 build/package of a project, without adding appveyor.yml , and even without install.ps1 and run_with_compiler.cmd (e.g. non-Windows programmers who despise having such junk in their repo.)

I think it would be helpful to also show how this can be done.

As an example of doing it with appveyor.yml , but without install.ps1 and run_with_compiler.cmd , see https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/208957/

To do it without appveyor.yml, which is even more flexible also, set up the Appveyor project using their 'GUI' to do the install PS block, environment matrix, and test script. This allows for rapid changes to the build matrix for example, without needing to push a new version of appveyor.yml into a repo (which will also trigger useless Travis CI builds, etc, etc)

If it is likely to be merged, I can write up either approach and do a PR.

@pfmoore
Copy link
Member

pfmoore commented Jun 8, 2015

I can't follow what is being proposed in the gerrit link, and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by using the appveyor GUI. I'd suggest you write up a PR to give us something concrete to discuss.

Personally, I'd be happy to see something like this included, as it lowers the barrier for people without access to Windows providing support for Windows users. Although I question the motivation for providing Windows builds without doing Windows CI (how will you respond to bug reports?) Appveyor's service is slow enough that there may be other good reasons for wanting to not add it to your testing, though, so that's not a showstopper.

Could you please ensure that the PR is worded in a more positive manner though - "despise having such junk in their repo" isn't the sort of tone we want to set. (I'm sure you intended to do so, just noting this as a general policy on how the PUG should treat Windows support).

@willingc willingc closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Nov 11, 2023
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants