OpenMW 0.46.0

Anything related to PR, release planning and any other non-technical idea how to move the project forward should be discussed here.
User avatar
AnyOldName3
Posts: 1729
Joined: 26 Nov 2015, 03:25

Re: OpenMW 0.46.0

Post by AnyOldName3 » 13 Feb 2020, 22:42

We have unlimited GitLab CI, so we could be moving all nightlies/post-merge builds to that, and it would also mean we wouldn't have to put as much work into maintaining servers and working out when/why things started failing.
AnyOldName3, Master of Shadows

User avatar
Ace (SWE)
Posts: 834
Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 14:56

Re: OpenMW 0.46.0

Post by Ace (SWE) » 13 Feb 2020, 23:42

AnyOldName3 wrote:
13 Feb 2020, 22:42
We have unlimited GitLab CI, so we could be moving all nightlies/post-merge builds to that, and it would also mean we wouldn't have to put as much work into maintaining servers and working out when/why things started failing.
Certainly, though beware that Windows builds can take ages to run compared to Linux, especially if you want to also have LTO enabled for the added performance.
There's a reason why I spent a whole bit of time restructuring headers and slimming compilation units to bring down compile times, though admittedly that was mainly for AppVeyor and their - at the time - quite weak build nodes.

On the Flatpak front; builds are most likely not going to be rolling as quickly as other places. Hosting on flathub requires using their build infra, where a regular OpenMW package takes over an hour to compile when the build system is otherwise idle, and where new builds are only published after manual action or 24 hours - whichever comes first.
My current thought is to maybe use the beta-branch feature and automatically bump that every week or so - depending on Flathub's wishes, to avoid hogging the build servers while still offering an up-to-date package for those that want it.

User avatar
AnyOldName3
Posts: 1729
Joined: 26 Nov 2015, 03:25

Re: OpenMW 0.46.0

Post by AnyOldName3 » 14 Feb 2020, 01:06

The build time isn't a huge concern when it's for release reasons rather than checking-it'll-build-on-all-platforms-and-updating-the-PR/MR-if-not reasons. We can do lots of things in parallel, so it's not going to hold up CI for other things.
AnyOldName3, Master of Shadows

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4727
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Location: Belgium
Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: OpenMW 0.46.0

Post by psi29a » 14 Feb 2020, 11:41

@Ace: could we provide mingw builds? Couldn't those be built on Linux? Or even use MSVC's cl on Linux? (http://kegel.com/wine/cl-howto.html)

User avatar
Ace (SWE)
Posts: 834
Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 14:56

Re: OpenMW 0.46.0

Post by Ace (SWE) » 14 Feb 2020, 19:05

psi29a wrote:
14 Feb 2020, 11:41
@Ace: could we provide mingw builds? Couldn't those be built on Linux? Or even use MSVC's cl on Linux? (http://kegel.com/wine/cl-howto.html)
Not sure how well the current builds work with mingw, haven't tested that myself. But if the performance is fine and they don't require a bunch of additional runtimes, then sure.
If the full VS2019 SDK works fine in Wine, then that's a possibility too, though you need a bit more than just cl, nmake, and link to compile the full OpenMW project.
I'll run a few tests with that though, if nothing else I would be able to use a fully Linux-powered VS compile pipeline for other projects.

User avatar
AnyOldName3
Posts: 1729
Joined: 26 Nov 2015, 03:25

Re: OpenMW 0.46.0

Post by AnyOldName3 » 14 Feb 2020, 20:12

On my machine, an MSVC 2017 build takes less than a third of the time of an MSVC 2015 build. Are you sure Windows build times are still problematic?

I know someone's at least tried a MinGW build of OpenMW vaguely recently as there was a PR that made some aspect of the process work better. I don't know if that PR was necessary to actually do a build or sufficient to remove all the problems that might stop you doing a build.
AnyOldName3, Master of Shadows

User avatar
AnyOldName3
Posts: 1729
Joined: 26 Nov 2015, 03:25

Re: OpenMW 0.46.0

Post by AnyOldName3 » 14 Feb 2020, 20:14

That guide from Psi seems to be seventeen years old, by the way, so I'd expect none of it to be accurate anymore.
AnyOldName3, Master of Shadows

User avatar
raevol
Posts: 3054
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 01:12
Location: Caldera

Re: OpenMW 0.46.0

Post by raevol » 15 Feb 2020, 08:23

Capostrophic wrote:
13 Feb 2020, 19:18
C'mon.
Nice. Should we have a full-on discussion about moving to a rolling release then? I'm in favor...

K1ll
Posts: 147
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 21:54

Re: OpenMW 0.46.0

Post by K1ll » 15 Feb 2020, 15:25

@psi29a, @Ace I've been cross-compiling openmw for windows with mingw-w64 for years now. Don't know how the old Mingw32 project is doing. Would suspect it is completely dead by now but mingw-w64 seems pretty much alive and is working great for building 32 Bit and 64 Bit x86 windows binaries. Build time with mingw-w64 is pretty much the same as for a native linux build. Not too suprising since it's basically gcc just for a different output target anyway. Performance of the binaries in wine is pretty much the same as the native linux build too.

Post Reply