continuum-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik Ruisma" <feniksena...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:33:10 GMT
Thanks a lot for the answer. I think we will wait for the 1.1 to be released
(and hoping this will be anytime soon :-) )

Erik.

On 4/5/07, Emmanuel Venisse <emmanuel@venisse.net> wrote:
>
> In 1.1, you can force a build without changes (and re-do a complete
> checkout)
> And if you have 2 build definitions, the second build definition won't
> look if you have changes since the latest update of the working copy but
> since the latest execution of the current build
> definition to prevent to skip a build because an other build definition
> has already updated the working copy.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> David Roussel a écrit :
> > It's a bit of a hack, but you can see earlier posts in this list for how
> > to force a build with no changes, but it won't honour your dependency.
> > BTW it just uses curl and cron.
> >
> > As for the bug in 1.0.3, I think only bugs in 1.1-alpha are being fixed
> > by the commiters, so your best bet is to test on 1.1.  Not great.
> >
> > BTW, you can do all this stuff in luntbuild.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:29:21 +0200, "Erik Ruisma"
> > <feniksenator@gmail.com> said:
> >> Indeed we use continuum 1.0.3.
> >>
> >> Ok we now got them running seperately, BUT only the first build is
> >> actually
> >> executed, the second build does not start as there are no changes in
> CVS.
> >> Is there any way to force a build even if there are no changes? In fact
> >> what
> >> I really want is that the second build is only executed if the first
> >> build
> >> has been launched.
> >>
> >> So scheduling two builds for the same project at the same time does not
> >> work, I believe that's a bug.
> >>
> >> On 4/3/07, David Roussel <dave@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I take it you've got them to run ok separately?   Do then run ok when
> >>> not scheduled together?
> >>>
> >>> Is this in continuum 1.0.3?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3 Apr 2007, at 16:28, Erik Ruisma wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks for your proposal. That's what we did.
> >>>> However this seems to create some new problems.
> >>>> So what we have are two build definitions for one project: one
> >>>> launching the
> >>>> tests, one creating and deploying the site.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have scheduled both builds to run at the same moment. BUT only one
> >>>> actually runs.
> >>>> Why ?
> >>>> I can find the following in our logs:
> >>>> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> >>>> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO  Continuum                      -
> >>>> Enqueuing
> >>>> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=116).
> >>>> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
> >>>> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO  Continuum                      -
> >>>> Enqueuing
> >>>> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=118).
> >>>>
> >>>> Only the last one is executed. Is it possible that this is a bug in
> >>>> continuum ? ie that MyProject is somehow used as the key and only
> >>>> the last
> >>>> element from the queue remains?
> >>>>
> >>>> What if we would use 2 different build times (to make things more
> >>>> complex, I
> >>>> don't prefer it): is it possible to force the last scheduled build
> >>>> definition to run even if their are no modifications?? This seems
> >>>> to be also
> >>>> an issue...?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Any feedback welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/15/07, David Roussel <continuum@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them.  The
> >>>>> second build to just do the site.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
> >>>>> <feniksenator@gmail.com> said:
> >>>>>> Hello all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question,
> >>>>> but I
> >>>>>> thought
> >>>>>> to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are
> >>>>> generated,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when
> >>>>> there are
> >>>>>> some
> >>>>>> unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when
> >>>>> there are
> >>>>>> test
> >>>>>> failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem
> >>>>> during
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> build.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How would you set this up ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

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