www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [scm] Use case: Continuous integration
Date Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:57:24 GMT
Hi,

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:40 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2008, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  Continuous integration tools would probably be worth a whole topic of
>  >  their own, but since they are related to version control I'm taking
>  >  them up within this scope as well.
>  >
>  >  Use case: Someone (either within or outside Apache) sets up a
>  >  continuous integration system and wants to get the latest sources from
>  >  the source repository. Optimally the system would automatically
>  >  compile, package, and test the sources after each commit, but hourly,
>
>  Related changes are not always packaged into a single commit.
>
>  Sometimes it is easier to use several commits; though hopefully each
>  one will be self-contained, i.e. will not break the build.

Sure, but that's IMHO related to the sequence of changes use case, and
from a purist perspective such changes would probably be best handled
through a short-lived development branch. And ideally such changes
could then be merged back to trunk as an atomic commit that still
preserves the full incremental change history.

The exact commit and consistency rules are of course up to each
project to decide for themselves, but there are a number of projects
with a policy that no commit should break the build. The more
frequently the CI system runs, the less chance there is for another
developer to stumble on a broken build.

>  If there are 10 commits in as many minutes, does the CI system really
>  need to build each one?

It wuold IMHO be very useful to have clear indication of which one of
those 10 commits actually broke the build.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message