continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: Trusting in our own dog food
Date Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:55:39 GMT
Ok, fair enough. I've left it on, and made it use a different local  

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
>> - 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 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

View raw message