On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Daniel Roe <daniel.r.roe.gmail.com> wrote:
> This reinforces why we should have CI testing somewhere, preferably a
> site that has access to lots of different compilers (Rutgers, Utah,
> SDSC?). There are a lot of open source solutions for this out there
> (e.g. buildbot, jenkins, etc). With Amber getting more and more
> complex it seems necessary to have some automated checks in place.
>
> Maybe something to chat about at the developer's meeting?
>
>
Yeah, I and DAC had a brief discussion about bringing this to amber meeting
too.
IMO, CI testing is a must.
Hai
> -Dan
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:17 AM, David A Case <david.case.rutgers.edu>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016, Hai Nguyen wrote:
> >
> >> > Failure: building 'mdgx.mdgx' extension
> >
> >> You catch me. I have never used icc (since I can not test it on travis).
> >> May be I just exclude pymdgx build if using icc.
> >
> > For now, I've just removed pymdgx from the default build on the master
> branch
> > at git.ambermd.org. We need to test this on more compilers before
> > re-instating it. Testers can use github, or can do this:
> >
> > cd $AMBERHOME/AmberTools/src; make pymdgx
> >
> > ...dac
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AMBER-Developers mailing list
> > AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------
> Daniel R. Roe
> Laboratory of Computational Biology
> National Institutes of Health, NHLBI
> 5635 Fishers Ln, Rm T900
> Rockville MD, 20852
> https://www.lobos.nih.gov/lcb
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Tue Dec 13 2016 - 08:00:03 PST
