From users-return-6358-apmail-continuum-users-archive=continuum.apache.org@continuum.apache.org Wed Apr 16 07:54:43 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-continuum-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 35068 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2008 07:54:43 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Apr 2008 07:54:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 41671 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2008 07:54:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-continuum-users-archive@continuum.apache.org Received: (qmail 41655 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2008 07:54:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@continuum.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@continuum.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@continuum.apache.org Received: (qmail 41635 invoked by uid 99); 16 Apr 2008 07:54:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:54:37 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of brett.porter@gmail.com designates 209.85.142.185 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.142.185] (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.185) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:53:52 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so753386tib.18 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:54:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=vgUJa+HkOSUudQd5R1yC2P3/GZyPAsXKIMUv2TYMYFE=; b=nOq08UZXebGwq/5VaRp3A3eOohV1rjswVtMtCMpDjNdEOlQ0hQGw647QxZksM4p5TaSOTRzB2ThxBlHhzGsjMmWxjfXu+dPaEoIV+cJCS+aKhOnE7qOmU+ckLRe0x/qhaDp3bnKFdAsFeOfVUHa+kpAiILZTe1pZg2y07VjbM8s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ZyQglGKo5voObQEJrKgl8tZjICscSCWRwxvP1sm8a9YS2g4W9Fx0UGIfb0/MED5R/Pc9RCvJ1Iwm5JCBrWGe9cwsc4xwbFY68J86Yk5uOwPfpsHYLIOXbXvMzIb9CU4srfR0lRRVsGVwFyyvKPwT5Muki348cGcrZD69D1YuxUU= Received: by 10.110.47.17 with SMTP id u17mr717333tiu.4.1208332444066; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.110.63.3 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9e3862d80804160054q4e4053dfgfca1e34b6b131fa6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:54:04 +0800 From: "Brett Porter" To: users@continuum.apache.org Subject: Re: CI Use of Repositories In-Reply-To: <69AB3F80173BDD46960FB60E86DF94F805B1469E@MKEXCHVS2.Mail.Fiserv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <69AB3F80173BDD46960FB60E86DF94F805B1469E@MKEXCHVS2.Mail.Fiserv.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org It sounds like a good approach to me. On 16/04/2008, Harper, Brad wrote: > Hello: > > I'm instituting continuous integration builds for a collection of maven > projects. > > Under interactive builds, developers may deploy artifacts to a SNAPSHOT > repo. We may also run deploy:deploy to an internal remote repo [to share > non-SNAPSNOT baselines] and release:perform-release to share artifacts > with QA [from that same internal remote repo] for formal evaluations > resulting in a final release. > > Artifacts under formal QA evaluation are submitted as a series of > release candidates [via the internal remote repo], with specific maven > values, e.g. 1.2.3-RC-1, 1.2.3-RC-2, etc., until approved. > > The question is ... > > Should ci-built artifacts be deployed into a separate repository? Apart > from simply knowing that the build and unit tests succeeded, the working > assumption is that QA should be able to pick-up and test any ci-built > artifact produced by a nightly build -- but that doing so is not the > same as receiving a release candidate and initiating a formal testing > cycle. > > Any general thoughts? Thanks. > > > Brad > -- Brett Porter Blog: http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/