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 Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:42:35 GMT
Yes - can you coordinate with Maarten on this please?

--

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, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the answers -- I do agree that sounds like what is going on with
> the tests. If you drill down a bit you can get the failure messages which
> read like race conditions -- like file access errors and such.
>
> The build trigger has been re-enabled so you should get a build with the
> next PR.
>
> To get the list notified we'd need to create a fake TC user for the list
> and then subscribe that to the project. Would that work?
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > To answer your questions:
> >
> > 1. I think we can waive code coverage for now. Especially since we are
> > basically porting tests from Java Lucene and at this point code coverage
> > will have no effect on our process.
> >
> > 2. This is probably a result of a race condition / test instability. I
> > don't think it has anything with which repo you read from, just the core
> > instability of some of the moving parts.
> >
> > 3. "run after master branch has an update" is the way to go. Can you set
> it
> > up to send notifications to the dev list please?
> >
> > I was referring to https://github.com/ParticularLabs/GitVersion but for
> > now
> > we can keep with vanilla git flow / github flow
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone, sorry for the radio silence but we are getting very close.
> > >
> > > The basic CI setup where we grab the latest and then run an automated
> > build
> > > and test was fairly easy to get worked out. But getting it running
> right
> > > has been a bit of a challenge. The main stumbling block the last few
> > weeks
> > > was that, if I ran the test suite locally, I was getting through it in
> > > 15-20 minutes. Once I went to the build servers this stretched to 2+
> > hours.
> > > After playing a game of "what am I doing differently" I realized I was
> > > causing this delay. TeamCity has a feature for running test coverage on
> > > your tests. I had enabled this on our tests because test coverage is
> > great
> > > and part of the point of doing this. It turns out test coverage also
> very
> > > slow which was causing this time issue -- not something horribly fubar
> in
> > > the code or the tests.
> > >
> > > The other problem I am seeing is that there seems to be some
> variabiltiy
> > in
> > > what tests fail here are the last 3 test runs, all with zero code
> > changes:
> > > * #45: 1178 tests failed, 53 new failures, 1476 passed, 119 ignored
> > > * #44: 1170 tests failed, 49 new failures, 1483 passed, 119 ignored
> > > * #42: 1178 tests failed, 50 new failures, 1476 passed, 119 ignored
> > > * #41: 1178 tests failed, 58 new failures, 1475 passed, 119 ignored
> > >
> > > In this context a "new" failure means that the test had passed in a
> > > previous iteration and then failed anew, potentially indicating some
> > broken
> > > code was introduced. Unfortunately there were zero code changes during
> > any
> > > or all of those tests -- I was just trying to get a consistent run
> given
> > > consistent input. I also have seen a similar pattern on my private
> setup
> > > where I have done the lion's share of this development work.
> > >
> > > In terms of sources, I am successfully running against the apache
> github
> > > mirror. The official apache git repo is still hanging about 90 tests
> into
> > > things and I'm not sure why -- it appears to be the same commit hash as
> > the
> > > github branch (2d7533d4e5a3278f242c2915c6f8dfd10ea77847) so it is
> > > presumably the same code involved. Will investigate this further but
> for
> > > now we are pointed at https://github.com/apache/lucenenet.git.
> > >
> > > In terms of proceeding here, here are the questions:
> > >
> > > * How important is constantly running / reported code coverage to us?
> > Worth
> > > having a very lengthly build process? Is it something where we setup a
> > > single weekly code-coverage reporting job?
> > > * Does anyone have any insight into the inconsistent behavior by some
> of
> > > the tests? There are CSV exports of all the test runs so we could
> > probably
> > > do some anaysis to focus the targets.
> > > * Is there any difference I am *not* seeing with the ASF repo? Why is
> the
> > > github one working and the presumably identical ASF one not?
> > > * What kind of schedule do we want this running on? Right now it has
> been
> > > manual, mainly because I didn't want to loose 3 hour test cycles on the
> > > world. But we are past that a bit so I think we can switch it to "run
> > after
> > > master branch has an update" at this point and not overstay our welcome
> > > over at codebetter and get to the kind of feedback you all wanted.
> > >
> > > Still on the todo list [with questions]:
> > >
> > > * Get a better build system in place in general to make room for . . .
> .
> > > * Setup nuget generation and other packaging -- really kind of moot
> until
> > > we get tests passing in general but still notable.
> > > * Take a dive into integrating with the git flow system Itamar
> mentioned
> > > someplace but I can't seem to find at the moment.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps explain a bit, please let me know if you've got
> > questions.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> itamar@code972.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Wyatt, I wonder if you have any good news for us on this?
> > > >
> > > > 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