lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Setting up the CI pipeline
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:47:23 GMT
Better yet, how about:

1. Replacing all Console.WriteLine with logger.WriteLine - but set it up so
output does show up on TeamCity's output AND VisualStudio's Output window?
this way we can get far better logs on demand.

2. In the CI server, have the VERBOSE and DEBUG settings tunable for when
we do want to run tests and get the logs for further inspections

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com> wrote:

> I think I found the issue with the tests taking forever to run.
> TestDoubleMockGraphTokenFilterRandom was running seemingly indefinitely --
> I don't actually think now that it would run indefinitely, I just didn't
> feel like waiting on it after a good number of minutes.
>
> I noticed a strange behavior when I was stepping through the test to see
> what was going on -- the console output would catch up every few times I'd
> step over a statement, as if there were a background thread going on.
>
> I do think there is some background thread issue, but it isn't with the
> Lucene.net code (as far as I can tell) -- it appears to be with NUnit
> itself or perhaps the VS test framework. But since it happened on the CI
> server too, I'm leaning towards NUnit.
>
> What I actually think is happening is that the Console output is handled
> asynchronously in some background thread, and there's just *so much*
> logging
> happening in the LookaheadTokenFilter et al that when DEBUG evaluates to
> true and the Console.WriteLine calls stack up, it takes forever to get
> through them all. Running the tests in Release mode (when the
> Console.WriteLine is not called) or manually setting DEBUG and VERBOSE to
> evaluate to false even in Debug configuration, causes the test to pass in
> 15 seconds on my machine.
>
> Wyatt, can you try running the build and tests in Release mode and see if
> it runs better for you? We might also be able to get through this by
> reducing the logging by commenting out the Console.WriteLine calls.
>
>
> Paul Irwin
> Lead Software Engineer
> feature[23]
>
> Email: pirwin@feature23.com
> Cell: 863-698-9294
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Please do.
> >
> > Send a ICLA to secretary@apache and send us a PR, I'll take care of
> > merging
> > it
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> >
> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So, after fighting a number of teething problems -- many of them self
> > > inflicted -- I've got a solid, repeatable test run that finishes in 38
> > > minutes or so on our hardware.
> > >
> > > I can certainly reprise this setup over on teamcity.codebetter.com
> > without
> > > much effort. We will need to merge some changes into things before
> > > proceeding -- the current state of tests in the trunk will just hang if
> > we
> > > tried to run them there. I'm guessing I'll need to sign a contributing
> > > agreement here as I don't believe I filed one.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sounds good, we'll be [Explicit()] with reason.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > itamar@code972.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Yes, but Explicit() will help us isolate those issues from other
> real
> > > bugs
> > > >> we can concentrate on solving in parallel.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > [Ignore()] is good too, I actually prefer a slightly nuanced
> version
> > > >> called
> > > >> > [Explicit()] as that lets you still fire off the test from
> resharper
> > > or
> > > >> > nunit gui.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That said I proposed Assert.Fail() here because we can put the
> > failure
> > > >> > point at the *exact* point where the folks should start debugging
> > this
> > > >> from
> > > >> > versus having them start a at a whole test or test fixture.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Don't forget to stick a reason to the Ignore property tho!
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Or just Skip (or Ignore, however that's called in NUnit)
:)
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > >> > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> 5 minutes sounds like a reasonable going in proposition.
That
> > > said
> > > >> > > >> depending on how many of these there are there
might well be
> a
> > > >> *lot*
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > 5
> > > >> > > >> minute waits.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Would it help if I just stuck Assert.Fails() where
I run into
> > > these
> > > >> > > loops
> > > >> > > >> for the folks smarter than I to run down?
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko
<
> > > >> > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > 5 mins max for one test maybe?
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > To fix that infinite loop we need to revisit
the original
> > Java
> > > >> code,
> > > >> > > >> most
> > > >> > > >> > likely its porting of an iterator-style code
that went
> > wrong. I
> > > >> hope
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > >> > have time to look at it next week, please
anyone else who
> > feels
> > > >> like
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > >> > beat me to it..
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > --
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > >> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > https://twitter.com/synhershko
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > >> > Author of RavenDB in Action <
> http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Wyatt Barnett
<
> > > >> > > >> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > So, after the 2nd day of watching the
tests just spin I
> > > decided
> > > >> > > that a
> > > >> > > >> > > little visibility might make sense as
something just was
> > not
> > > >> > adding
> > > >> > > up
> > > >> > > >> > -- I
> > > >> > > >> > > expected some failing tests, and some
long-running tests
> > but
> > > >> there
> > > >> > > >> just
> > > >> > > >> > > ain't enough data here to keep something
running for 8+
> > > hours.
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > Anyhow, I stood up VS and the debugger
and started
> looking
> > > into
> > > >> > > things
> > > >> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >> > > I found that I was hitting at least one
infiinte loop
> > dealing
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > >> > > randomized values -- specifically at
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/blob/master/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Index/BasePostingsFormatTestCase.cs#L394
> > > >> > > >> > > ;
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > Anyhow, I'm not sure how to proceed here
as if we want
> test
> > > >> > > automation
> > > >> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > >> > > tests need to run through in a reasonable
amount of time
> > but
> > > I
> > > >> > don't
> > > >> > > >> know
> > > >> > > >> > > enough about the project to know what
should run or not.
> > One
> > > >> > thought
> > > >> > > >> > would
> > > >> > > >> > > be to use nunit timeout attributes (
> > > >> > > >> > > http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=timeout&r=2.5)
to
> > constrain
> > > >> > > things.
> > > >> > > >> If
> > > >> > > >> > so
> > > >> > > >> > > what is a reasonable timeout?
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > I'm quite open to other, non kludgy thoughts
too . . .
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Wyatt
Barnett <
> > > >> > > >> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > > I looked over GitVersion -- looks
like a great fit for
> > this
> > > >> > > project
> > > >> > > >> > > though
> > > >> > > >> > > > it will require a bit of forethought
about branching
> > > >> strategies.
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > > I'll take a run at getting it integrated
once I get
> > through
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > test
> > > >> > > >> > > suite
> > > >> > > >> > > > running successfully.
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:59 AM,
Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> > > >> > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Inline
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> --
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > >> > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko
<
> > > >> > https://twitter.com/synhershko
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action
<
> > > http://manning.com/synhershko/
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:53
PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > >> > > >> > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks. I registered at
CodeBetter.com under wwb. Is
> > > there
> > > >> > any
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > documentation on their
TeamCity setup or someone
> who I
> > > can
> > > >> > > reach
> > > >> > > >> out
> > > >> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > regarding questions about
the build environment?
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> I'm asking around, will let
you know
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks for the rundown
-- things sound pretty
> > > >> straightforward
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > >> > > >> doable.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > One thing we'll need to
think a bit a bout is how do
> > we
> > > >> want
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >> > manage
> > > >> > > >> > > >> the
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > git branching strategy
to best integrate with
> TeamCity
> > > and
> > > >> > best
> > > >> > > >> > > automate
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > the release cycle. Doing
things like constantly
> > > building a
> > > >> > > >> "trunk"
> > > >> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > releasing based on tags
are very doable.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Are you familiar with
> > > >> > > https://github.com/ParticularLabs/GitVersion
> > > >> > > >> ?
> > > >> > > >> > > I'll
> > > >> > > >> > > >> be interested in adopting this
to our process.
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I've grabbed the code,
looks like things are pretty
> > > clean
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > >> terms
> > > >> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > >> > > >> being
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > able to build and run cleanly.
One question --  I
> > > started
> > > >> > > running
> > > >> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > >> > > >> test
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > suite, it appears to execute
about 80% successfully.
> > I'm
> > > >> > > >> presuming
> > > >> > > >> > > this
> > > >> > > >> > > >> is
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > because we are still porting
4.8.0 here and is
> > expected
> > > >> > > behavior.
> > > >> > > >> > > Please
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > confirm.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, we still have some failing
tests. The hope is to
> > also
> > > >> > > utilize
> > > >> > > >> > > >> TeamCity's reports to measure
the affects of internal
> > > >> changes
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > >> make
> > > >> > > >> > > >> faster.
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I'll take a few stabs at
a build cycle over the next
> > few
> > > >> days
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > >> > see
> > > >> > > >> > > >> what
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I can shake out.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at
11:06 AM, Itamar
> Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> itamar@code972.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks Wyatt
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Can you please register
at
> > > >> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > >> > send
> > > >> > > >> > > >> me
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > your
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > user name (privately
if you prefer)?
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Please use the master
branch of our Apache git
> > git://
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > git.apache.org/lucene.net.git
- or the mirror at
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net
(would
> rather
> > > you
> > > >> use
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > >> > > >> original
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > one
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > to avoid delays)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The way I see it is
this:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.TestFramework
compiles and generates
> a
> > > >> nuget
> > > >> > > >> package
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.Core
and Lucene.Net.Tests compiles,
> > > taking
> > > >> > > >> dependency
> > > >> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Lucene.Net.TestFramework
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.Tests
is run and if successful
> versions
> > > the
> > > >> > > build
> > > >> > > >> and
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > generates nuget on
the local feed (we also have a
> > > MyGet
> > > >> > > >> account to
> > > >> > > >> > > >> work
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > with)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Same process to
all sub-projects:
> > Lucene.Net.Queries
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > >> > example:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Compile
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Compile Lucene.Net.Tests.Queries
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Run tests from
Lucene.Net.Tests.Queries (take
> > > >> > dependency
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Lucene.Net.TestFramework)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Create nuget for
Lucene.Net.Queries
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Every sub-project
should be re-compiled and
> tests
> > > >> re-run
> > > >> > if
> > > >> > > >> the
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > projects
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > it depends on have
changed (you can probably
> > separate
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > >> cases by
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > defining
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > watch folders under
src\)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > We can then iterate
from there.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I updated the README
to explain the new structure
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/blob/master/README.md#files
> > > >> > > >> > -
> > > >> > > >> > > >> let
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > me
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > know if you have any
questions.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > http://code972.com
| @synhershko <
> > > >> > > >> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Freelance Developer
& Consultant
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Author of RavenDB
in Action <
> > > >> > http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014
at 5:51 AM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > That would be
great -- let me know what I need
> to
> > do
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > help
> > > >> > > >> > make
> > > >> > > >> > > >> that
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > happen.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > In the meantime
I've got a teamcity server to
> work
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > here,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> should I
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > looking at
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > as the project
layout.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Also, what is
envisioned for the output of the
> > build
> > > >> > > >> pipeline?
> > > >> > > >> > > Many
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > things
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > are within the
art of the possible.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 14,
2014 at 9:08 PM, Prescott
> Nasser <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Would love
the help setting this up - Itamar
> do
> > > you
> > > >> > know
> > > >> > > >> if we
> > > >> > > >> > > can
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > provide
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Wyatt access
for this?
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > ________________________________
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > From: Wyatt
Barnett<mailto:
> > > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Sent: 11/14/2014
4:26 PM
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org<mailto:
> > > >> > > >> dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Subject:
Re: Setting up the CI pipeline
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > I do a lot
of CI and CD and I've got loads of
> > seat
> > > >> time
> > > >> > > >> with
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > TeamCity,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > would be
happy to help the cause.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > On Fri,
Nov 14, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Itamar
> > > Syn-Hershko
> > > >> <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > itamar@code972.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Heya,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > So
JetBrains and CodeBetter have setup a
> > > TeamCity
> > > >> > > account
> > > >> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > >> > > >> us -
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/project.html?projectId=LuceneNet&tab=projectOverview
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > I have
asked them to add Prescott and Troy
> as
> > > >> > > >> collaborators,
> > > >> > > >> > > so
> > > >> > > >> > > >> we
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 3
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > access
to change stuff there.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > The
idea is to have every sub-project (Core,
> > > >> Codecs,
> > > >> > > >> > Queries,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Facets,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > etc)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > compile
and available as a nuget package,
> and
> > > also
> > > >> > > >> > thoroughly
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > tested
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > via
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > the
test agents on TeamCity.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Prescott,
Troy - you said you can work on
> > > setting
> > > >> > this
> > > >> > > >> up,
> > > >> > > >> > > will
> > > >> > > >> > > >> be
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > happy
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > for
you to go ahead and do this now.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > If
there's anyone else on this list who has
> > > >> > experience
> > > >> > > >> with
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > TeamCity
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > setting
up CI pipelines, please drop us a
> line
> > > if
> > > >> you
> > > >> > > are
> > > >> > > >> > > >> willing
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > help
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > with
this effort.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Itamar
Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > http://code972.com
| @synhershko <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Freelance
Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Author
of RavenDB in Action <
> > > >> > > >> http://manning.com/synhershko/
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message