Replace try with a client for the force scheduler

[marcusl]

We have a "try" client defined which looks for a patch in a local repository on a developer's system, patches it up, and submits it to Buildbot. It's very ad-hoc, isn't very configurable, and hasn't gotten a lot of love.

Now that we have a force scheduler, the better solution is for the try client to talk to a force scheduler, preferably using HTTP. The client should also capture and send e-mail address of the submitter so that notifications can be sent.

This allows lots of flexibility on the master side: users can set up as many force schedulers as they like, with different builders, properties, permissions, and so on.

scope

To make this project a summer's worth, it should aim to implement:

• a new try client
• improved support for DVCS's, where patches aren't required, but where the client must send a repository
• support in the master for sending force-build parameters to a force scheduler via an HTTP rest call
• support for patches in the force scheduler
• per-scheduler authentication/authorization
• migration information for users of the existing try functionality

[bhearsum]

This is implementable through a MailNotifier? already, is there something beyond that that is desired?

[dustin]

bhearsum: the code change would be in sending an email address along with the try request (I think..)

[tom.prince]

The plan is to deprecate try, and replace it by an extended force scheduler.

[jachen]

True. I wanted to use the try scheduler. But, seemed a lot of work for developers to set up, etc. Also not into setting up a bunch of user name/passwords to maintain this. Would prefer a loose general password for this type of stuff.

[jachen]

True. I wanted to use the try scheduler. But, seemed a lot of work for developers to set up, etc. Also not into setting up a bunch of user name/passwords to maintain this. Would prefer a loose general password for this type of stuff.

[tardyp]

afaik, this project is worked on by verm