continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Edward Gruber <cgru...@israfil.net>
Subject Re: Associating projects with distributed build agents
Date Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:15:29 GMT
I really don't like moving this way.  I think that determining whether  
there have been changes isn't so freaky if you use repository  
commands, not workspace commands to do this.  This should work with  
almost every client/server SCM system except maybe CVS, and with that  
you can still effectively do it with "cvs log -r X,X" (or diff)  
commands.  What worries me is a shift in the approach of continuum  
away from a really useful system based on a limitation of the SCMs.   
I'd rather have a more functional continuum that has fall-back  
approaches for less feature-rich SCM systems.

Christian.

On 28-Jan-09, at 19:08 , Wendy Smoak wrote:

> The more I think about this in light of the other discussion about the
> problem of figuring out whether or not there have been scm changes
> (because the last-used scm checkout might be anywhere) I'm leaning
> towards:
>
> 1. associate a build environment with a single build agent [1]
> 2. get parallel builds working on the build agent (CONTINUUM-2045)
>
> It's the effect of concurrent builds that I'm attached to, not
> necessarily selecting an agent at build time.  That is, I'd love to
> see permission- and capability-based selection of agents at some
> point, but I can live with something less than that for the moment.
>
> What do you think?
>
> [1] I still need to make sure only an admin controls which projects
> build on which agents...
>
> -- 
> Wendy
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Christian Edward Gruber
> <cgruber@israfil.net> wrote:
>> I think the "magic" can be made visible, in that if it is criteria  
>> based,
>> the server can display those agents which would apply to the current
>> criteria, so that a user can see the implications of his  
>> selection.  Since
>> the display will be the same logic as the criteria selection (it's  
>> really
>> just straight set theory) then the user is not going to be surprised.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On 19-Jan-09, at 02:44 , Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I think selection needs to be a combination of capability,  
>>> permission and
>>> availability. I would mostly prefer the user is in full control of  
>>> selecting
>>> these rather than having too much magic (automated selection might  
>>> be a nice
>>> feature, but the basic starting point should be a fully configured  
>>> system).
> ...
>

Christian E. Gruber - President / Senior Consultant
Isráfíl Consulting Services Corporation
email:  cgruber@israfil.net
mobile: +1 (289) 221-9839
web:    http://www.israfil.net/
"...keenness of understanding is due to keenness of vision."








Mime
View raw message