gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Gump 3.0 - Database Model
Date Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:21:48 GMT
Wade.Stebbings@Lawson.com wrote:
> This is cool.  FWIW, here's some bits from my experience, implemeting
> something similar in a MySQL database.

Awesome!

> In my Build Results system, I have a schema that also includes a few
> additional things:
> 
>  - abritrary groupings of projects, which helps in organizaing various
>     forms of the presentation of the data

Can you elaborate more on this?

>  - the general notion of "attributes" associated with each:
>     - build (instance)
>     - project
>     - group
>     - the whole system

"attributes" as in "annotations" or as in "related data"?

> And since my system is focused on creating interaction between people
> about given built baselines, I have the notion of a notes history 
> associated
> with any given build, in a similar spirit as the comment history of a 
> given
> "bug" in bugzilla.

I like the concept of allowing bugzilla-style communication to happen 
without requiring people to subscribe to various mail lists, like a 
common ground for communication to happen.

But I don't want this to be too global, because I want gump-related 
discussions to happen on the mail list.

> Like the notes table, I have separate tables for (references to) 
> artifacts,

yes, the artifact table is missing, that's a good point.

> and another for results, to support any arbitrary number of 
> artifacts/results
> to a given build-instance.  

Good point.

> This could be hidden in your diagram inside 
> the
> "builds" entity/table, but wasn't explicit.

No, you're right, we need to add that.

> I've built a lot of generality into my schema, since I need to support 
> many
> inputs into this database, from various (new and old) build systems.  Thus
> things like the result table is kept very general within the database. One
> area that is not very well thought out (in my case) are how results and/or
> build instances depend on each other, a core requirement for Gump, as
> it seems.
> 
> Hope this helps.  Comments?

So, things missing are:

  1) bugzilla like comments (on build results only? or what else?)
  2) artifact table / artifact type table

Anything else you guys see missing?

-- 
Stefano.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org


Mime
View raw message