continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: refactoring the SCM
Date Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:53:29 GMT
+1

It must also be possible to view the error from the UI

What do others think? Emmanuel - I know you worked on this area before  
to ensure builds in error got retriggered?

Cheers,
Brett

On 31/07/2008, at 5:46 PM, Marica Tan wrote:

> Ok here's my new proposal :)
>
> SCM Errors
> 1. Separation of configuration/pre-build from actual build
> 2. Create new state for svn failure but will use ( x ) for the icon
> 3. Still send a notification if there's an svn failure. ( I would  
> still like
> to be notified if something like this happens )
> 4. Have a checkout/update error field on the project.
> 5. Can release project even if it has a state of svn failure
> 6. Do not create a build result for transient errors
>
> Cancelling a build
> 7. Cancelled build will trigger a skip but will still have it's  
> previous
> state.
>
> WDYT?
>
> - Marica
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31/07/2008, at 3:54 PM, Marica Tan wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org>  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The more I think about it, the current (x) really signifies the  
>>> right
>>>> thing, but the way it is treated needs to be improved as you've
>>>> described.
>>>> WDYT?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You mean putting the error in the session? I think if there is a  
>>> transient
>>> error then we put it into session so that even if you leave the  
>>> group
>>> summary page while it's still updating/checking out and an svn  
>>> failure
>>> occur, it's still possible to show the (x) and the error message.  
>>> But once
>>> you leave the page again or make a refresh, the error will be gone  
>>> ( we
>>> removed the error from the session once it is displayed ) and the  
>>> status
>>> will be the previous status of the project.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, no - I still think we should track it on the server (it's  
>> still
>> relevant until it's fixed) - just not as part of the build history  
>> for the
>> project.
>>
>> I think we used to have a separate checkout error field on the  
>> project - it
>> is probably a generalisation of that?
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


Mime
View raw message