continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Arnaud HERITIER" <aherit...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Trusting in our own dog food
Date Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:15:12 GMT
It's good. I'm seeing it when I'm logged.

Arnaud

On 1/18/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> 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 <brett@apache.org> 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 <brett@apache.org> 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
> >> >>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message