On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> What is not ok is a CI running every hour, for instance (as it may send >>> users a notification every hour if the build is broken - we already >>> experienced it on ADS ! -) >>> >>> >>> >> >> I want to know when the build breaks period. I'd rather deal with false >> positives then deal with actual breakage making us get caught with our >> pants >> down. >> >> I've been debating this for years with Emm, but one day he'll lose this >> argument :D. >> >> > nahhh... > > Anyway, the bad experience we have had was with 5 mins interval > notifications, not 1 hour ;) What made it unmanageable is that it occurred > during a week-end, and we weren't able to stop the notifications ! > > So the middle term is probably to try to commit chunks of code which are > not breaking the code (I learnt that from Alex, and this is probably what I > should have done from day one at apache :), and get notified if it breaks > the code. > > Let's set notification on commits. > That's perfect. This is what I wanted but I think just one notification that the build is broken is enough. The CI server should not be sending notifications of breakage repeatedly after that. Thanks, Alex -- Microsoft gives you Windows, Linux gives you the whole house ...
