You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@river.apache.org by Jonathan Costers <jo...@googlemail.com> on 2009/10/05 18:48:34 UTC
River CI build
I have recently added a number of QA tests to our Hudson CI build job.
The number of QA tests run has increased from 40-something (the
joinmanager category) to 337 (id, loader, policyprovider,
locatordiscovery, activation, config, discoverymanager, joinmanager,
url, iiop, jrmp, reliability, thread categories)
Needless to say the build takes a lot longer (it takes hours now)...
Would it make sense to split up into two separate builds? To make sure
- one build job that polls SVN hourly, builds, runs unit (i.e. not QA
nor jtreg) tests and packages up. We could call this the "release"
build: River-release.
- one build job that is scheduled daily, builds, runs unit tests, and
runs the QA (and soon jtreg) tests (no packaging here). We could call
this the "qa" build: River-qa.
Thoughts?
Thanks
Jonathan
Re: River CI build
Posted by Peter Firmstone <ji...@zeus.net.au>.
Ditto, good work Jonathan.
Jeremy Easton-Marks wrote:
> Great job on increasing the test coverage!
>
> I think it would be a good idea to split it into two separate builds.
>
>
> Jeremy R. Easton-Marks
>
> "être fort pour être utile"
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jonathan Costers <
> jonathan.costers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I have recently added a number of QA tests to our Hudson CI build job.
>>
>> The number of QA tests run has increased from 40-something (the
>> joinmanager category) to 337 (id, loader, policyprovider,
>> locatordiscovery, activation, config, discoverymanager, joinmanager,
>> url, iiop, jrmp, reliability, thread categories)
>>
>> Needless to say the build takes a lot longer (it takes hours now)...
>>
>> Would it make sense to split up into two separate builds? To make sure
>>
>> - one build job that polls SVN hourly, builds, runs unit (i.e. not QA
>> nor jtreg) tests and packages up. We could call this the "release"
>> build: River-release.
>>
>> - one build job that is scheduled daily, builds, runs unit tests, and
>> runs the QA (and soon jtreg) tests (no packaging here). We could call
>> this the "qa" build: River-qa.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: River CI build
Posted by Jeremy Easton-Marks <co...@gmail.com>.
Great job on increasing the test coverage!
I think it would be a good idea to split it into two separate builds.
Jeremy R. Easton-Marks
"être fort pour être utile"
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jonathan Costers <
jonathan.costers@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I have recently added a number of QA tests to our Hudson CI build job.
>
> The number of QA tests run has increased from 40-something (the
> joinmanager category) to 337 (id, loader, policyprovider,
> locatordiscovery, activation, config, discoverymanager, joinmanager,
> url, iiop, jrmp, reliability, thread categories)
>
> Needless to say the build takes a lot longer (it takes hours now)...
>
> Would it make sense to split up into two separate builds? To make sure
>
> - one build job that polls SVN hourly, builds, runs unit (i.e. not QA
> nor jtreg) tests and packages up. We could call this the "release"
> build: River-release.
>
> - one build job that is scheduled daily, builds, runs unit tests, and
> runs the QA (and soon jtreg) tests (no packaging here). We could call
> this the "qa" build: River-qa.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks
> Jonathan
>
>