Re: Trusting in our own dog food
It's good. I'm seeing it when I'm logged. Arnaud On 1/18/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: try now On 18/01/2007, at 9:53 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > I just created an account and the list is also empty :-( > > Arnaud > > On 1/17/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> was just pondering that myself. >> >> shouldn't the default be that guest is a user on all project groups >> and we remove it to be more restrictive? >> >> - Brett >> >> On 18/01/2007, at 8:05 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: >> >> > Is it normal that the projects list is empty when we aren't logon ? >> > >> > http://maven.zones.apache.org:8080/continuum/groupSummary.action >> > >> > Arnaud >> > >> > On 1/17/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Ok, fair enough. I've left it on, and made it use a different >> local >> >> repository. >> >> >> >> I'd say once we release Continuum 1.1 and are happy it is stable >> >> enough to use, we can turn this off. >> >> >> >> On 15/01/2007, at 11:02 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: >> >> >> >> > Brett Porter wrote: >> >> >> so... you're saying you don't trust our dog food? :) >> >> > >> >> > No, I'm saying it's there to verify the dog food. If there is no >> >> > discrepancies between what the cron is saying and the C >> instance is >> >> > saying, it's good. If there is an discrepancy it's not good. >> >> > >> >> > It will be more a tool to verification tool that a CI (but that >> >> > might be two sides of the same story :) >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Trygve >> >> > >> >> >> The only thing it tests differently is: >> >> >> - works by cron, whereas continuum might go down/hang/something >> >> >> else (which is something we should work on fixing if it does, >> >> >> rather than rely on ci.sh) >> >> >> - runs a reactor (can add that as a less frequent build >> execution >> >> >> in continuum too, though). >> >> >> So, I don't see any reason to keep it - wdyt? >> >> >> - Brett >> >> >> On 11/01/2007, at 7:57 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: >> >> >>> Brett Porter wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use >> >> Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I don't see why it should be turned off, but perhaps the >> >> >>> automatic notifications can be turned off or just send >> failures. >> >> >>> That way it would verify the product (it will in itself be an >> >> >>> integration test) because if the Continuum instance says that >> >> >>> something is failing, you should expect an email saying the >> same >> >> >>> right after. Or at least you can check the logs directory if >> >> >>> you're suspecting some other failure. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> Trygve >> >> >>
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
try now On 18/01/2007, at 9:53 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: I just created an account and the list is also empty :-( Arnaud On 1/17/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: was just pondering that myself. shouldn't the default be that guest is a user on all project groups and we remove it to be more restrictive? - Brett On 18/01/2007, at 8:05 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > Is it normal that the projects list is empty when we aren't logon ? > > http://maven.zones.apache.org:8080/continuum/groupSummary.action > > Arnaud > > On 1/17/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Ok, fair enough. I've left it on, and made it use a different local >> repository. >> >> I'd say once we release Continuum 1.1 and are happy it is stable >> enough to use, we can turn this off. >> >> On 15/01/2007, at 11:02 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: >> >> > Brett Porter wrote: >> >> so... you're saying you don't trust our dog food? :) >> > >> > No, I'm saying it's there to verify the dog food. If there is no >> > discrepancies between what the cron is saying and the C instance is >> > saying, it's good. If there is an discrepancy it's not good. >> > >> > It will be more a tool to verification tool that a CI (but that >> > might be two sides of the same story :) >> > >> > -- >> > Trygve >> > >> >> The only thing it tests differently is: >> >> - works by cron, whereas continuum might go down/hang/something >> >> else (which is something we should work on fixing if it does, >> >> rather than rely on ci.sh) >> >> - runs a reactor (can add that as a less frequent build execution >> >> in continuum too, though). >> >> So, I don't see any reason to keep it - wdyt? >> >> - Brett >> >> On 11/01/2007, at 7:57 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: >> >>> Brett Porter wrote: >> Folks, >> I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use >> Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? >> >>> >> >>> I don't see why it should be turned off, but perhaps the >> >>> automatic notifications can be turned off or just send failures. >> >>> That way it would verify the product (it will in itself be an >> >>> integration test) because if the Continuum instance says that >> >>> something is failing, you should expect an email saying the same >> >>> right after. Or at least you can check the logs directory if >> >>> you're suspecting some other failure. >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Trygve >>
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
I just created an account and the list is also empty :-( Arnaud On 1/17/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: was just pondering that myself. shouldn't the default be that guest is a user on all project groups and we remove it to be more restrictive? - Brett On 18/01/2007, at 8:05 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > Is it normal that the projects list is empty when we aren't logon ? > > http://maven.zones.apache.org:8080/continuum/groupSummary.action > > Arnaud > > On 1/17/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Ok, fair enough. I've left it on, and made it use a different local >> repository. >> >> I'd say once we release Continuum 1.1 and are happy it is stable >> enough to use, we can turn this off. >> >> On 15/01/2007, at 11:02 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: >> >> > Brett Porter wrote: >> >> so... you're saying you don't trust our dog food? :) >> > >> > No, I'm saying it's there to verify the dog food. If there is no >> > discrepancies between what the cron is saying and the C instance is >> > saying, it's good. If there is an discrepancy it's not good. >> > >> > It will be more a tool to verification tool that a CI (but that >> > might be two sides of the same story :) >> > >> > -- >> > Trygve >> > >> >> The only thing it tests differently is: >> >> - works by cron, whereas continuum might go down/hang/something >> >> else (which is something we should work on fixing if it does, >> >> rather than rely on ci.sh) >> >> - runs a reactor (can add that as a less frequent build execution >> >> in continuum too, though). >> >> So, I don't see any reason to keep it - wdyt? >> >> - Brett >> >> On 11/01/2007, at 7:57 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: >> >>> Brett Porter wrote: >> Folks, >> I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use >> Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? >> >>> >> >>> I don't see why it should be turned off, but perhaps the >> >>> automatic notifications can be turned off or just send failures. >> >>> That way it would verify the product (it will in itself be an >> >>> integration test) because if the Continuum instance says that >> >>> something is failing, you should expect an email saying the same >> >>> right after. Or at least you can check the logs directory if >> >>> you're suspecting some other failure. >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Trygve >>
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
was just pondering that myself. shouldn't the default be that guest is a user on all project groups and we remove it to be more restrictive? - Brett On 18/01/2007, at 8:05 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: Is it normal that the projects list is empty when we aren't logon ? http://maven.zones.apache.org:8080/continuum/groupSummary.action Arnaud On 1/17/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, fair enough. I've left it on, and made it use a different local repository. I'd say once we release Continuum 1.1 and are happy it is stable enough to use, we can turn this off. On 15/01/2007, at 11:02 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: > Brett Porter wrote: >> so... you're saying you don't trust our dog food? :) > > No, I'm saying it's there to verify the dog food. If there is no > discrepancies between what the cron is saying and the C instance is > saying, it's good. If there is an discrepancy it's not good. > > It will be more a tool to verification tool that a CI (but that > might be two sides of the same story :) > > -- > Trygve > >> The only thing it tests differently is: >> - works by cron, whereas continuum might go down/hang/something >> else (which is something we should work on fixing if it does, >> rather than rely on ci.sh) >> - runs a reactor (can add that as a less frequent build execution >> in continuum too, though). >> So, I don't see any reason to keep it - wdyt? >> - Brett >> On 11/01/2007, at 7:57 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: >>> Brett Porter wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? >>> >>> I don't see why it should be turned off, but perhaps the >>> automatic notifications can be turned off or just send failures. >>> That way it would verify the product (it will in itself be an >>> integration test) because if the Continuum instance says that >>> something is failing, you should expect an email saying the same >>> right after. Or at least you can check the logs directory if >>> you're suspecting some other failure. >>> >>> -- >>> Trygve
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
Is it normal that the projects list is empty when we aren't logon ? http://maven.zones.apache.org:8080/continuum/groupSummary.action Arnaud On 1/17/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, fair enough. I've left it on, and made it use a different local repository. I'd say once we release Continuum 1.1 and are happy it is stable enough to use, we can turn this off. On 15/01/2007, at 11:02 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: > Brett Porter wrote: >> so... you're saying you don't trust our dog food? :) > > No, I'm saying it's there to verify the dog food. If there is no > discrepancies between what the cron is saying and the C instance is > saying, it's good. If there is an discrepancy it's not good. > > It will be more a tool to verification tool that a CI (but that > might be two sides of the same story :) > > -- > Trygve > >> The only thing it tests differently is: >> - works by cron, whereas continuum might go down/hang/something >> else (which is something we should work on fixing if it does, >> rather than rely on ci.sh) >> - runs a reactor (can add that as a less frequent build execution >> in continuum too, though). >> So, I don't see any reason to keep it - wdyt? >> - Brett >> On 11/01/2007, at 7:57 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: >>> Brett Porter wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? >>> >>> I don't see why it should be turned off, but perhaps the >>> automatic notifications can be turned off or just send failures. >>> That way it would verify the product (it will in itself be an >>> integration test) because if the Continuum instance says that >>> something is failing, you should expect an email saying the same >>> right after. Or at least you can check the logs directory if >>> you're suspecting some other failure. >>> >>> -- >>> Trygve
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
I think we need to change the changes check. Actually, we do an update on all projects to check if we have changes. It will be better to use the status command (I don't know if this command exist in all SCM), but with svn, we'll can use 'svn status -u' I think the changes check will improve performance when working copy is up-to-date Emmanuel Brett Porter a écrit : That doesn't actually matter for the client side speed boost. I'm running 1.4.2 on continuum now. - Brett On 15/01/2007, at 2:21 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: The svn.apache.org server is a little old too: Powered by Subversion version 1.3.1 (r19032). -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:46 PM To: continuum-dev@maven.apache.org Subject: Re: Trusting in our own dog food yeah, it's subversion 1.1.4 (ouch!). I'm going to look at upgrading! On 11/01/2007, at 11:27 PM, Federico Yankelevich wrote: I read on svn changelog that SVN v1.4 increased a lot the speed for comparing local copy with repository. Maybe continuum is very slow in SVN update because it is using SVN 1.3 (both client and server needs to be updated) see http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.4_releasenotes.html just my 2 cents, Federico brettporter wrote: Yes, I have a script to automate installing the latest build (though would need changes if continuum_ci was turned off). 1.1 is running very well thanks to some sleuthing by Wendy and quick fixes from Emmanuel. My biggest concern is the scalability of polling. It currently takes about 30 minutes to just run through all the required svn up commands to detect if builds are needed for all the Maven projects. - Brett On 11/01/2007, at 10:26 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: good luck ;-) did you update the 2.1 snapshot ? Arnaud On 1/11/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? - Brett -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Trusting-in-our- own-dog-food-tf2955860.html#a8276485 Sent from the Continuum - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
Brett Porter wrote: so... you're saying you don't trust our dog food? :) No, I'm saying it's there to verify the dog food. If there is no discrepancies between what the cron is saying and the C instance is saying, it's good. If there is an discrepancy it's not good. It will be more a tool to verification tool that a CI (but that might be two sides of the same story :) -- Trygve The only thing it tests differently is: - works by cron, whereas continuum might go down/hang/something else (which is something we should work on fixing if it does, rather than rely on ci.sh) - runs a reactor (can add that as a less frequent build execution in continuum too, though). So, I don't see any reason to keep it - wdyt? - Brett On 11/01/2007, at 7:57 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: Brett Porter wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? I don't see why it should be turned off, but perhaps the automatic notifications can be turned off or just send failures. That way it would verify the product (it will in itself be an integration test) because if the Continuum instance says that something is failing, you should expect an email saying the same right after. Or at least you can check the logs directory if you're suspecting some other failure. -- Trygve
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
That doesn't actually matter for the client side speed boost. I'm running 1.4.2 on continuum now. - Brett On 15/01/2007, at 2:21 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: The svn.apache.org server is a little old too: Powered by Subversion version 1.3.1 (r19032). -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:46 PM To: continuum-dev@maven.apache.org Subject: Re: Trusting in our own dog food yeah, it's subversion 1.1.4 (ouch!). I'm going to look at upgrading! On 11/01/2007, at 11:27 PM, Federico Yankelevich wrote: I read on svn changelog that SVN v1.4 increased a lot the speed for comparing local copy with repository. Maybe continuum is very slow in SVN update because it is using SVN 1.3 (both client and server needs to be updated) see http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.4_releasenotes.html just my 2 cents, Federico brettporter wrote: Yes, I have a script to automate installing the latest build (though would need changes if continuum_ci was turned off). 1.1 is running very well thanks to some sleuthing by Wendy and quick fixes from Emmanuel. My biggest concern is the scalability of polling. It currently takes about 30 minutes to just run through all the required svn up commands to detect if builds are needed for all the Maven projects. - Brett On 11/01/2007, at 10:26 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: good luck ;-) did you update the 2.1 snapshot ? Arnaud On 1/11/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? - Brett -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Trusting-in-our- own-dog-food-tf2955860.html#a8276485 Sent from the Continuum - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: Trusting in our own dog food
The svn.apache.org server is a little old too: Powered by Subversion version 1.3.1 (r19032). -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:46 PM To: continuum-dev@maven.apache.org Subject: Re: Trusting in our own dog food yeah, it's subversion 1.1.4 (ouch!). I'm going to look at upgrading! On 11/01/2007, at 11:27 PM, Federico Yankelevich wrote: > > I read on svn changelog that SVN v1.4 increased a lot the speed for > comparing local copy with repository. > Maybe continuum is very slow in SVN update because it is using SVN > 1.3 (both > client and server needs to be updated) > > see http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.4_releasenotes.html > > just my 2 cents, > Federico > > > > brettporter wrote: >> >> Yes, I have a script to automate installing the latest build (though >> would need changes if continuum_ci was turned off). >> >> 1.1 is running very well thanks to some sleuthing by Wendy and quick >> fixes from Emmanuel. >> >> My biggest concern is the scalability of polling. It currently takes >> about 30 minutes to just run through all the required svn up commands >> to detect if builds are needed for all the Maven projects. >> >> - Brett >> >> On 11/01/2007, at 10:26 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: >> >>> good luck ;-) >>> did you update the 2.1 snapshot ? >>> >>> Arnaud >>> >>> On 1/11/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum >>>> itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? >>>> >>>> - Brett >>>> >>>> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Trusting-in-our- > own-dog-food-tf2955860.html#a8276485 > Sent from the Continuum - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
yeah, it's subversion 1.1.4 (ouch!). I'm going to look at upgrading! On 11/01/2007, at 11:27 PM, Federico Yankelevich wrote: I read on svn changelog that SVN v1.4 increased a lot the speed for comparing local copy with repository. Maybe continuum is very slow in SVN update because it is using SVN 1.3 (both client and server needs to be updated) see http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.4_releasenotes.html just my 2 cents, Federico brettporter wrote: Yes, I have a script to automate installing the latest build (though would need changes if continuum_ci was turned off). 1.1 is running very well thanks to some sleuthing by Wendy and quick fixes from Emmanuel. My biggest concern is the scalability of polling. It currently takes about 30 minutes to just run through all the required svn up commands to detect if builds are needed for all the Maven projects. - Brett On 11/01/2007, at 10:26 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: good luck ;-) did you update the 2.1 snapshot ? Arnaud On 1/11/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? - Brett -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Trusting-in-our- own-dog-food-tf2955860.html#a8276485 Sent from the Continuum - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
so... you're saying you don't trust our dog food? :) The only thing it tests differently is: - works by cron, whereas continuum might go down/hang/something else (which is something we should work on fixing if it does, rather than rely on ci.sh) - runs a reactor (can add that as a less frequent build execution in continuum too, though). So, I don't see any reason to keep it - wdyt? - Brett On 11/01/2007, at 7:57 PM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: Brett Porter wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? I don't see why it should be turned off, but perhaps the automatic notifications can be turned off or just send failures. That way it would verify the product (it will in itself be an integration test) because if the Continuum instance says that something is failing, you should expect an email saying the same right after. Or at least you can check the logs directory if you're suspecting some other failure. -- Trygve
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
I read on svn changelog that SVN v1.4 increased a lot the speed for comparing local copy with repository. Maybe continuum is very slow in SVN update because it is using SVN 1.3 (both client and server needs to be updated) see http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.4_releasenotes.html just my 2 cents, Federico brettporter wrote: > > Yes, I have a script to automate installing the latest build (though > would need changes if continuum_ci was turned off). > > 1.1 is running very well thanks to some sleuthing by Wendy and quick > fixes from Emmanuel. > > My biggest concern is the scalability of polling. It currently takes > about 30 minutes to just run through all the required svn up commands > to detect if builds are needed for all the Maven projects. > > - Brett > > On 11/01/2007, at 10:26 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > >> good luck ;-) >> did you update the 2.1 snapshot ? >> >> Arnaud >> >> On 1/11/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum >>> itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? >>> >>> - Brett >>> >>> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Trusting-in-our-own-dog-food-tf2955860.html#a8276485 Sent from the Continuum - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
Brett Porter wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? I don't see why it should be turned off, but perhaps the automatic notifications can be turned off or just send failures. That way it would verify the product (it will in itself be an integration test) because if the Continuum instance says that something is failing, you should expect an email saying the same right after. Or at least you can check the logs directory if you're suspecting some other failure. -- Trygve
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
Yes, I have a script to automate installing the latest build (though would need changes if continuum_ci was turned off). 1.1 is running very well thanks to some sleuthing by Wendy and quick fixes from Emmanuel. My biggest concern is the scalability of polling. It currently takes about 30 minutes to just run through all the required svn up commands to detect if builds are needed for all the Maven projects. - Brett On 11/01/2007, at 10:26 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: good luck ;-) did you update the 2.1 snapshot ? Arnaud On 1/11/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? - Brett
Re: Trusting in our own dog food
good luck ;-) did you update the 2.1 snapshot ? Arnaud On 1/11/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? - Brett
Trusting in our own dog food
Folks, I'd like to turn off continuum_ci.sh and instead only use Continuum itself to do CI for Continuum. Any objections? - Brett
