On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 15:25, Felix Schumacher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Am 18.06.19 um 10:28 schrieb sebb: > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 07:42, Felix Schumacher > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Am 17.06.19 um 21:57 schrieb sebb: > >>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 17:44, Felix Schumacher > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Am 16.06.19 um 21:02 schrieb Felix Schumacher: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> I tried to adapt the buildbot config for JMeter to reflect the git > >>>>> migration. > >>>>> > >>>>> The init-svnVersion step has been removed and most of the "got_revision" > >>>>> properties are replaced by the buildnumber to keep a linear numbering > >>>>> for the nightlies. The only place were I kept the got_revision property > >>>>> is the java property for the "svn" version. > >>>>> > >>>>> So maybe we have nightlies again tomorrow > >>>> Nightlies are building again (after I removed some svn specific stuff in > >>>> the build.xml files and used the correct branch everywhere). > >>>> > >>>> But the nightlies are not getting indexed. There seems to be shell > >>>> script involved named create-jmeter-nightlies-index.sh which might have > >>>> to be updated. I don't know, since I don't even know where the sources > >>>> for that script are. > >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot/aegis/buildmaster/master1/public_html/projects/jmeter/nightlies > >> Thanks. > >> > >> At the moment the script looks for directories named r{number} where > >> number was the revision of the subversion repo. I changed the number to > >> buildnumber (which is way smaller than the revision number). The > >> directories are sorted by that number. That will cause the new builds to > >> be at the end of the list. The list gets capped and the entries not > >> shown -- at least not for the next 30 days or so. > >> > >> I wonder if it would be nicer to change the naming scheme from r{number} > >> to b{number} to indicate that we now use buildnumbers instead of > >> revisions. > > That would be simplest. > > But sadly not so simple as I thought. The build would have to be done > with svn.revision set to buildnumber. I don't want to use the > buildnumber there. > > Therefore I have chosen to use both the buildnumber and revision in the > directory name. The revision can than be extracted from the directory > name and used for the build artifacts. > > I checked in the needed changes for this scheme, but it seems that the > committing the shell files is not enough to get them on the build servers. > > Do you know, what I have to do next?
Don't remember; I suspect Infra may have to restart something. > Felix > > > > >> Or go wild and use git revisions and sort by file creation > >> date instead of file name. > >> > >> What do you think? > > But whatever works best; it's not critical to have these. > > > >> Felix > >> > >>>> Felix > >>>> > >>>>> Felix > >>>>>
