[DISCUSS] Gating CI

[Sean Schulte <Se...@rackspace.com>]

A continuous integration environment would give us the following assurances:

  *   It builds
  *   The tests pass

Optionally, it can also provide (if we tie these into the CI process):

  *   Code coverage
  *   Deployment works

At the very least, though, we need a CI that tells us that a proposed pull request builds, and that the tests pass. A pull request should not ever be merged if the code does not compile or if the unit tests fail.

At some point in the future, CI should also ensure that new code is covered by tests, and that the project can be deployed. In the interest of moving forward quickly and giving us a base to build from, I think these can be delayed until later.

What are everyone's thoughts on setting up a CI that must pass before you can merge, and we define "pass" as "builds and tests pass" (ie mvn clean install works)?

Thanks, Sean

Re: [DISCUSS] Gating CI

[Charles Porter <op...@gmail.com>]

+1 for CI, mvn clean install as requirement for merges



On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Sean Schulte <Se...@rackspace.com>
wrote:

> A continuous integration environment would give us the following
> assurances:
>
>   *   It builds
>   *   The tests pass
>
> Optionally, it can also provide (if we tie these into the CI process):
>
>   *   Code coverage
>   *   Deployment works
>
> At the very least, though, we need a CI that tells us that a proposed pull
> request builds, and that the tests pass. A pull request should not ever be
> merged if the code does not compile or if the unit tests fail.
>
> At some point in the future, CI should also ensure that new code is
> covered by tests, and that the project can be deployed. In the interest of
> moving forward quickly and giving us a base to build from, I think these
> can be delayed until later.
>
> What are everyone's thoughts on setting up a CI that must pass before you
> can merge, and we define "pass" as "builds and tests pass" (ie mvn clean
> install works)?
>
> Thanks, Sean
>