On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:31 +0530, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote: >> Thanks for your input. My concern is that Hudson reports/notifications >> sometimes are completely useless. Also recently there have been so >> many false negatives reported on the list. I was hoping that may be >> Continuum doesn't suffer these limitations. >> >> Thanks, >> Hiranya >> >> > > We at HttpComponents use both Continuum and Hudson, though, I personally > find Hudson to be easier to manager and generally better. Both systems > tend to produce false positives when running low on resources or are > under heavy load. However in most cases the failures manifested > themselves as various timeouts (connect / response timeouts) rather any > particular flaw in the CI system. > > The main source of trouble with Hudson for me were frequent failures > with deploying snapshots to the repository.apache.org, which, as Andreas > pointed out, has nothing to do with Hudson as such.
I see. Thanks Andreas and Oleg for the details. I guess we'll be sticking with Hudson :) Thanks, Hiranya > > > Cheers > > Oleg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Hiranya Jayathilaka Senior Software Engineer; WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
