RANT WARNING! RANT WARNING! When did Lucid enter the picture? This has nothing to do with Lucid.
As you say this may all be taken care of with the new Hudson, and that could be the end of the story, hooray!!!!! I'm perfectly willing to wait and see if it settles out. What this *does* have to do with, from my perspective, is that Solr hasn't had a release in quite a while. There is lots of goodness in the 3_x and trunk builds. We see comments on the user's list of "get a nightly build from trunk or 3_X and try it". Which may be sound advice. But I can absolutely guarantee that a number of potential users take a single glance at the number of "failures" (even if they are bogus) reported on Hudson and immediately cross Solr off their list as far as using trunk or 3.x. It doesn't matter that 1.4.1 would report the same nonsense if it was continually built. It doesn't matter that 3.x and trunk have far better automated tests. It doesn't matter that the developers have confidence. I'm talking perception here, not underlying code quality. What matters (and I'm talking perception, remember) is that out of the last 10 3.x builds 6 have "failed", as have 5 of the last 10 trunk builds. Which makes it easy to dismiss and/or have an exaggerated sense of the instability of the 3_x and trunk builds. If there were a solution that allowed us to satisfy both the developers' needs and this perception, I think we should go for it. Now, it may well be that the current situation is acceptable to the community and that our story should continue to be "be patient, we'll release sometime". But this story is getting old(er). But please don't make the mistake of dismissing stodgy corporate concerns (and I'm speaking of my experience at several companies here). They may or may not be valid from a technical perspective. It may even be that stodgy corporations wouldn't use open source software anyway. It may be that we just don't care. I'm not in a position to offer any hard evidence either way. Nor, I suspect is most anyone else given the recent Maven kerfluffle.... And I have no good response at all to the reply "Ok, wise guy, dive in and *make* a release happen". "I'm too busy" is a pretty lousy excuse <G>... OK, rant pretty much over. It would be an easier thing to recommend trunk or 3_x if there were some commitment to a release date. Potential users of the newer branches could at least plan on using one of them with the expectation that the target would stop moving before their go-live date. But as it is some number of users will stay on 1.4.1 for lack of the ability to plan. FWIW Erick On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > The failures from today are just test builds. > > Today also a new Hudson was installed... so please simply wait a few days > until it settles. > > If Lucid wants their customer to use nightly builds, they could setup ones > on their servers for their customers? For us Hudson mostly a test system to > check our commits. And clover is part of that. > > If somebody wants to install a trunk build, they should always svn checkout > and build themselves. Then they can even fix to specific rev no and can > always reproduce their build. > > Uwe > > > > "Erick Erickson" <erickerick...@gmail.com> schrieb: > > >I don't know what other issues you're referring to, but please, please, > >please do whatever you can to remove "false failures". It's highly > >disconcerting to folks we talk to on the message boards to say > >"Functionality you need is in the nightly builds and you can use them, > >but > >just ignore the errors the build reports. Really, it's OK. Trust us". > > > >Putting on my corporate IT hat I'd have serious reservations about > >using > >code that looks broken all the time (even if it's "just a build > >artifact")... > > > >Erick > > > >On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu> wrote: > > > >> Clover causes Hudson nightly builds to fail intermittently. This is > >bad, > >> because it looks like Lucene/Solr tests are failing when they are > >not. But > >> Clover is good, so nobody wants to turn it off. > >> > >> One possible solution (apologies if this has already been suggested): > >make > >> new nightly Clover-only Hudson builds, and remove Clover from the > >existing > >> nightly builds. > >> > >> I think that would address all of the issues, wouldn't it? > >> > >> Steve > >> > > -- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
