Hi Anthony,
Perhaps we have a difference of opinion
regarding the purpose of Integration builds? Milestone builds are more of
an interest to clients than Integration builds, imo. Integration builds
are what allow us to produce stable Milestone builds by giving us a chance to
adjust to changes in our dependencies. The week before a Milestone build,
like this week, enables us to update our dev targets to the next stable
configuration as we approach our Milestone build. So, we in effect have a
week to “kick the tires” using this config before we release the
Milestone. For the 1.0 Release build, we will have a longer period to do
so before producing the build.
To do this with greater frequency is
certainly possible, and is what we have been doing for the past few
weeks. The only difference being that you are proposing we delay the
actual release of the I-build itself by one week, effectively releasing an Integration
build as a mini-milestone with 1 week periodicity. This seems excessive,
to me (while it is actually easier to configure the build machine this way).
Does anyone else have an opinion on this,
or am I missing the point?
Thanks,
Rich
From: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Anthony Hunter
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006
1:46 PM
To: GMF
Project developer discussions.
Subject: RE: [gmf-dev] Build
I20060227-1730 posted
Hi Richard,
I
have the opposite opinion in that if our clients are downloading integration
drivers, then I want to be on these targets "kicking the tires"
before they are.
So
if we move the weekly I-build to a configuration, then I want that
configuration too.
"doesn’t force us to fix weekly I-build breakages immediately".
So we do not automatically push these drivers to our clients?
Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Manager - Software Developer,
IBM Rational Software: Aurora Core Common / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-591-7037
"Richard Gronback"
<Richard.Gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent
by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/01/2006 07:26 AM
Please
respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions."
<gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To
|
"GMF Project
developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [gmf-dev] Build I20060227-1730 posted
|
|
Hi Anthony,
I think you lost me. Currently, we configure a new
target weekly (typically Thursday) that is made up of Platform/EMF/GEF/EMFT
weekly I-builds. Once built, we all move to this target configuration
(this was agreed to for the M5 period).
Previously, we had a stable (last milestone of each) target
used for nightly and continuous builds, with a weekly I-build that used the
config mentioned above. We also ran a nightly build using the I-build
config.
I’d recommend we move back to the previous schedule,
which allows for a more stable dev target and doesn’t force us to fix
weekly I-build breakages immediately.
Thanks,
Rich
From:
gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Hunter
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:40 AM
To: GMF Project developer discussions.
Subject: Re: [gmf-dev] Build I20060227-1730 posted
Hi Richard,
Currently:
Eclipse declares a new Integration build for the week we adopt the latest
integration builds for Eclipse + EMF + GEF + EMFT (not 100% sure which day this
is done, but I think it is Thursday).
Once we have a working / approved GMF integration build we move these targets
back to the nightly builds and developers adopt as their new target.
I think we want to switch to the nightly build and developers running on a
target for a week before using them for the GMF integration builds. This way we
have a period of time to test and fix JUnit failures.
Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Manager - Software Developer,
IBM Rational Software: Aurora Core Common / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-591-7037
"Richard Gronback"
<Richard.Gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
02/27/2006 06:58 PM
Please
respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions."
<gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To
|
<gmf-releng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
Subject
|
[gmf-dev] Build I20060227-1730 posted
|
|
http://download.eclipse.org/technology/gmf/downloads/drops/I-I20060227-200602271730/index.php
Note the updated dependencies (Platform 3.2M5a, EMF/GEF/EMFT M5) and some test
failures.
Are we OK to switch back to stable configurations for nightly builds, or should
we stick with weekly updates to the latest I-build in our dev environments?
Also, a new Linux build machine is being configured in Prague and will be managed by Max Feldman, who returns to GMF after a period away.
This should eliminate our connection timeout errors and path limit
problems.
Thanks,
Rich_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev