Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
*New Critical Failure in master Cache (Restarts) 1
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/IgniteTests24Java8_CacheRestarts1?branch=%3Cdefault%3E
No changes in the build
>> Btw, I was always against moving thin clients into separate repos.
Monorepo
Monorepo is a mostly cargo cult. What is suitable for google is not
suitable for others.
For example, we have already released new versions of pyignite with many
new features.
When this client was in our super repo, it
Ivan,
1. It will be clean. It will actually be better: good to know when build
failure is caused by a config change, right?
2. Can you please provide an example in a well-known open-source project
other than Ignite?
Btw, I was always against moving thin clients into separate repos. Monorepo
1. Clean commit history (As one developer said, git history is an api)
2. We have separate thin client repos -- but TC thin client build depends
on ignite build also.
вт, 17 авг. 2021 г. в 18:08, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> Ivan,
>
> > I'm sorry, but what about storing TC configs in separate repo?
>
Ivan,
> I'm sorry, but what about storing TC configs in separate repo?
What are the pros of this approach? What do we gain?
Separate repo always adds friction, and it is not clear how to handle
config changes that are tied to code changes.
> It is quite common approach.
Can you provide an
I'm sorry, but what about storing TC configs in separate repo?
It is quite common approach.
вт, 17 авг. 2021 г. в 17:33, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> Anton,
>
> > This will kill repo history.
> > You'll see dozens of TC config updates vs a single Ignite fix
>
> Not really.
> I'm not suggesting something
Anton,
> This will kill repo history.
> You'll see dozens of TC config updates vs a single Ignite fix
Not really.
I'm not suggesting something crazy, this is the modern way to do CI/CD
- see GitHub actions, Azure pipelines, etc - you write a config and store
it in Git.
> Where are you going to
After initial setup, there won't be lot's of changes, at least for PRs there
will be single commit with both fix and TC changes.
> On 17 Aug 2021, at 13:05, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
>
> This will kill repo history.
> You'll see dozens of TC config updates vs a single Ignite fix
Unfortunately, it won't work. At least in the nearest future.
Currently, you cannot see project structure on TC in any branch except default
(master/main).
And some things like snapshot dependencies are ONLY taken from default branch.
> On 17 Aug 2021, at 10:25, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
>
>
> I think TC config should be stored in the same repo as the corresponding
> code (2.x config in 2.x repo, 3.x in 3.x, etc).
This will kill repo history.
You'll see dozens of TC config updates vs a single Ignite fix
> it would be great to be able to test them by simply creating a new branch
> in
Dmitry, Petr,
I think TC config should be stored in the same repo as the corresponding
code (2.x config in 2.x repo, 3.x in 3.x, etc).
Changes and updates to build scripts and project structure often come
together with changes to TC configuration,
it would be great to be able to test them by
11 matches
Mail list logo
