I would say separating builds should be the duty of a build container. If Jenkins somehow allows two build plans to run from the same directory then I think it's either a bug or a risky feature.
This said, there are also downsides of appending anything that changes (per-run) to build directories -- you won't be able to tell where your JVMs (and their output files) are created, if stuff is left behind you'll have an incremental mess from which it'll be hard to determine what's recent, what's stale, what failed, etc. I know this for a fact because I initially created current working directories in a temporary folder (at random). It was hell. Dawid On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > Today each JVM receives its own work.dir, e.g. J0, J1 and so forth. I think > I've hit on my Jenkins an error that was caused due to overlapping builds, > one deleted the work.dir of the other. > > So maybe we can do a best effort to detect the PID and if success, append it > to work.dir, e.g. J0_9324? If the JVM ManagementBean is able to return a > parseable PID, then we use it, otherwise we stick w/ J0. > > Is it possible? > > In the meanwhile, I've configured my Jenkins to not run overlapping builds. > > Shai --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
