Mailing-List: contact continuum-users-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: continuum-users@maven.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of feniksenator@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.242 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=aYWUkPUSonNDKCX1XvlUWacHnHVxR6dbDFfIErCgMIXE0yQNzd+EP+ot8EYlKlov8CeQDboXMcuEg47PMfijbf1TZBjk0WwbFB+BXKxCM99alETk1juvkyFtQOKaQCZlSz3TgpJoCQh6nEWv1Zlewd3s80chtljbPgY7DHCqFCE=
Message-ID: <79a72e520704061133m3fd31b2bpfea94e7ad5c7e9f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 20:33:10 +0200
From: "Erik Ruisma" <feniksenator@gmail.com>
To: continuum-users@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
In-Reply-To: <4614E303.4040104@venisse.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_23646_10222820.1175884390770"
References: <79a72e520703140347o18a8f059i7844c293b5b33bf9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1173959642.4364.1179591991@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	 <79a72e520704030828w4d63322fm2d638ed59eb8f6c1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <F649F15D-456B-4E85-80F7-B8373483D828@diroussel.xsmail.com>
	 <79a72e520704040329t71f0f092tfbfe0a817f7cf65a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1175767274.7945.1183161676@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	 <4614E303.4040104@venisse.net>

------=_Part_23646_10222820.1175884390770
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Thanks a lot for the answer. I think we will wait for the 1.1 to be release=
d
(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 =E9crit :
> > It's a bit of a hack, but you can see earlier posts in this list for ho=
w
> > 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 fac=
t
> >> 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 no=
t
> >> 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 on=
e
> >>>> 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=3D116).
> >>>> 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=3D118).
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

------=_Part_23646_10222820.1175884390770--