intrigeri wrote (05 Jan 2016 23:44:50 GMT) :
> ⇒ bertagaz, please find (or create) that ticket, and make sure it
> references the starting point of this thread for each month in the
> list archives:
Done: https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/9719
___
Hi,
it seems like the sub-thread I'm replying to was a good discussion
about the Jenkins / Redmine interaction. It contains plenty of good
thinking. It didn't end up with actionable conclusions, which is not
a surprise, nor a failure I think: it was deliberately about stuff we
did not expect
intrigeri wrote (15 Sep 2015 08:58:48 GMT) :
> bertagaz wrote (03 Sep 2015 08:44:01 GMT) :
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:12:39PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
>>> I think that's not a blocker for the first iteration, though: if videos
>>> are added between Oct. 15 and Jan. 15, I'm happy :)
>>>
>>>
bertagaz wrote (03 Sep 2015 08:44:01 GMT) :
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:12:39PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
>> I think that's not a blocker for the first iteration, though: if videos
>> are added between Oct. 15 and Jan. 15, I'm happy :)
>>
>> bertagaz, time to create tickets that sum this up, or do
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:12:39PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
>
> I think that's not a blocker for the first iteration, though: if videos
> are added between Oct. 15 and Jan. 15, I'm happy :)
>
> bertagaz, time to create tickets that sum this up, or do we need
> more discussion?
Done, in
On 09/01/2015 06:57 PM, anonym wrote:
> On 09/01/2015 12:04 PM, intrigeri wrote:
>> bertagaz wrote (28 Aug 2015 14:24:51 GMT) :
>>> and might take quite a bit of disk space to store.
>>
>> ... and smaller (#10001). I'm curious how much space a full set of
>> test suite videos take.
>
> I'll try
On 09/02/2015 11:11 AM, anonym wrote:
> Failing Scenarios:
> cucumber features/time_syncing_bridges.feature:29 # Scenario: Clock way
> in the past in bridge mode
> cucumber features/time_syncing_bridges.feature:45 # Scenario: Clock way
> in the future in bridge mode
> cucumber
hi,
anonym wrote (02 Sep 2015 09:11:43 GMT) :
> I got a video that was 309 MiB large [...]
Assuming (very wild guess) that the size gain brought by the proposed
changes from #10001 can be extrapolated, this could become 117 MiB.
If that's mostly correct, then with an aggressive enough cleaning
anonym wrote (01 Sep 2015 16:57:05 GMT) :
> Yes, per-scenario videos would be great (my plan was to do this when we
> have #8947, but whatever, nothing prevents us from having it now). They
> would be more useful than per-feature videos, and actually easier to
> implement AFAICT. Please file a
On 09/02/2015 01:12 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> hi,
>
> anonym wrote (02 Sep 2015 09:11:43 GMT) :
>> I got a video that was 309 MiB large [...]
>
> Assuming (very wild guess) that the size gain brought by the proposed
> changes from #10001 can be extrapolated, this could become 117 MiB.
> If that's
hi,
bertagaz wrote (02 Sep 2015 10:41:59 GMT) :
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:59:09PM +0200, anonym wrote:
>> On 09/01/2015 12:23 PM, intrigeri wrote:
>> > bertagaz wrote (26 Aug 2015 17:52:26 GMT) :
>> Since pushing stuff into the branch after this field has been set to
>> true invalidates the
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:59:09PM +0200, anonym wrote:
> On 09/01/2015 12:23 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> > bertagaz wrote (26 Aug 2015 17:52:26 GMT) :
> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:38:19PM +0200, anonym wrote:
> >>> The current proposal seems to be to only start the automated test run of
> >>> a
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:04:39PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> bertagaz wrote (28 Aug 2015 14:24:51 GMT) :
> >
> > But then, often the screen capture are enought to identify why
> > a step failed to run.
>
> In my experience, sometimes, what would help understanding the problem
> has
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:57:05PM +0200, anonym wrote:
> On 09/01/2015 12:04 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> > bertagaz wrote (28 Aug 2015 14:24:51 GMT) :
> >> I've also added a new section about the result to keep:
> >
> >> ## What kind of result shall be kept
> >
> >> The test suite produces
On 09/01/2015 12:23 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> bertagaz wrote (26 Aug 2015 17:52:26 GMT) :
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:38:19PM +0200, anonym wrote:
>>> The current proposal seems to be to only start the automated test run of
>>> a feature branch when it is marked "Ready for QA". This has overloaded
On 09/01/2015 12:04 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> bertagaz wrote (28 Aug 2015 14:24:51 GMT) :
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 07:46:17PM +0200, anonym wrote:
>> I've also added a new section about the result to keep:
>
>> ## What kind of result shall be kept
>
>> The test suite produces different
Hi,
bertagaz wrote (28 Aug 2015 14:24:51 GMT) :
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 07:46:17PM +0200, anonym wrote:
> I've also added a new section about the result to keep:
> ## What kind of result shall be kept
> The test suite produces different kind of artifacts: logfiles, screen
> captures for
bertagaz wrote (26 Aug 2015 17:52:26 GMT) :
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:38:19PM +0200, anonym wrote:
>> The current proposal seems to be to only start the automated test run of
>> a feature branch when it is marked "Ready for QA". This has overloaded
>> the meaning of this status so it no longer
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 07:46:17PM +0200, anonym wrote:
On 08/26/2015 07:21 PM, bertagaz wrote:
The rational behind my proposal was that it would at least raise the
issue if there were some external changes that breaks the build of this
feature branch (mostly, changes in APT/Debian).
Hi,
Many thanks for your deep review and opinion share. More below.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:00:25PM +0200, anonym wrote:
On 07/01/2015 07:19 PM, intrigeri wrote:
bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) :
for feature branches, we could run the full test suite only on the
daily builds,
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:38:19PM +0200, anonym wrote:
On 06/25/2015 11:41 AM, bertagaz wrote:
Looks great! For the record, I looked at the spec as of commit e70f8e7.
Thanks! I'm cheating, most of the work has already been done when we
designed the autobuilds. :D
# Facts
Running
On 08/26/2015 07:21 PM, bertagaz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:00:25PM +0200, anonym wrote:
On 07/01/2015 07:19 PM, intrigeri wrote:
bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) :
for feature branches, we could run the full test suite only on the
daily builds, and either only the automated
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:38:40 + (UTC)
anonym ano...@riseup.net wrote:
On 06/25/2015 11:41 AM, bertagaz wrote:
I've prepared a blueprint to start this discussion and take notes
of the decisions:
https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/automated_builds_and_tests/automated_tests_specs/
On 07/01/2015 07:19 PM, intrigeri wrote:
bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) :
for feature branches, we could run the full test suite only on the
daily builds, and either only the automated tests related to the
branch on every git push, and/or a subset of the whole test suite.
I'm not
On 06/25/2015 11:41 AM, bertagaz wrote:
I've prepared a blueprint to start this discussion and take notes of the
decisions:
https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/automated_builds_and_tests/automated_tests_specs/
Looks great! For the record, I looked at the spec as of commit e70f8e7.
# Facts
Hola,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:58:32PM +0200, bertagaz wrote:
So please contributors, take some time reading and commenting on this
blueprint. Most of it is a copy of the automated builds one, as it is
the next step in the chain and the previous one defined already most of
our design.
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:52:12PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
bertagaz wrote (09 Jul 2015 13:28:23 GMT) :
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 07:19:04PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) :
Indeed I find it too vague so I've rephrased this paragraph (414e4f3),
and
Hi,
bertagaz wrote (09 Jul 2015 13:28:23 GMT) :
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 07:19:04PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) :
I've tried to sum this up in a 'current proposal' subsection.
Seen this, yay. And pushed a few commits on top.
It also needs to know what
Hi
Thanks for your answer!
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 07:19:04PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) :
I've prepared a blueprint to start this discussion and take notes of the
decisions:
Hi,
bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) :
I've prepared a blueprint to start this discussion and take notes of the
decisions:
https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/automated_builds_and_tests/automated_tests_specs/
Great work! I've pushed a few minor changes, and a more important one
Hi,
As the automated builds are soon going to be put in production (yes, they
are), it's time to start the second round of discussion about the next
coming Tails CI feature: automated testing of these automated build ISOs.
Yay!
I've prepared a blueprint to start this discussion and take notes
31 matches
Mail list logo
